a 


THE   BOSWORTH   PSALTER 


PRINTED  AT  STANBROOK  ABBEY  WORCESTER 


THE  BOSWORTH  PSALTER 

AN  ACCOUNT  OF  A  MANUSCRIPT  FORMERLY  BELONGING 

TO  O.  TURVILLE-PETRE  ESQ.  OF  BOSWORTH  HALL 

NOW  ADDIT.  MS.  37517  AT  THE  BRITISH  MUSEUM 


BY 


ABBOT  GASQUET  &  EDMUND  BISHOP 


WITH   AN   APPENDIX   ON   THE   BIRTH-DATE   OF  SAINT  DUNSTAN 

BY 

LESLIE  A.  StL.  TOKE  B.  A. 


LONDON 

GEORGE  BELL  AND  SONS 

1908 


TO  THE  READER 

Since  the  first  portion  of  this  tract  has  been  in  type  the  Bosworth 
Psalter  has  passed  into  the  possession  of  the  British  Museum. 
It  is  now  catalogued  as  Addit.  MS.  37517. 

We  desire  to  express  our  thanks  to  Dr.  Warner  and  to 
Mr.  S.  C.  Cockerell  for  suggestions  and  help.  We  are  also  grateful 
to  the  authorities  of  Salisbury  Cathedral  for  allowing  the  ancient 
Psalter  MS.  1 50  in  their  library  to  be  sent  up  to  the  British  Museum 
for  consultation,  and  in  particular  to  Mr.  Maiden  for  so  kindly 
arranging  for  the  transit  of  the  volume. 


ls9£59l 


CONTENTS 


FASS 


Prefatory  Note         -         -         -         -         -         -        -i 

I  The  Psalter 

i.  History  and  Description  of  the  Volume  3 

2.  Contents  of  the  Volume  5 

3.  The  Psalms             _______  £ 

4.  The  Canticles  of  Lauds             -         -         -         -  1 1 

5.  The  Hymnal  -         -         -         -         -         -12 

6.  The  Canticles  of  the  Third  Nocturn           -         -  13 

II  The  Calendar 

1.  The  Glastonbury  Calendar        -         -         -  ij 

2.  The  Calendar  or  the  Bosworth  Psalter        -         -  21 

3.  The  Changes  at  Canterbury  under  Lanfranc        -  27 

4.  Christ  Church  or  St.  Augustine's?  34 
Transitional:  the  three  Calendars,  Arundel  155,  Arun- 
del 60,  Vitellius  E  xviii  40 

5.  Of  the  Feasts  of  the  Conception  and  Oblation  of 

the  B.  V.  M.      -         -         -         -         -         -  43 

6.  Of  Feasts  of  Breton  Saints  53 

7.  Relic  Cults:  Canterbury  or  Winchester?     -         -  57 

8.  The  Extension  of  Feasts  proper  to  Winchester  59 

9.  Summing  up  of  the  Enquiry  64 
10.  A  Table  of  Canterbury  Cathedral  Calendars  from 

the  eleventh  to  the  fifteenth  Century      -         -  68 

III  Conclusions 

The  Date  of  the  Psalter             -         -         -         -  126 

Appendix:  Some  Notes  on  the  accepted  Date  of  St.  Dun- 

stan's  Birth.    By  Leslie  A.  St.  L.  Toke,  B.  A.  131 


Addenda  ____----  145 

A.  The  Martyrological  Element  in  the  Anglo-Saxon 

Calendars  -  -  -  -  -  -  1 47 

B.  The  Grouping  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Calendars  158 

Print  of  Calendar  in  Cotton  MS.  Nero  A  11  165 

C.  The  Calendar  of  St.  Augustine's  Canterbury         -  171 
Corrigenda        -         -         -         -         -         -         -         "  11S 

Indkx  -         -         -         -         -         -         -         -  1 8 1 


LIST  OF  PLATES 


1.  Initial  of  psalm  51 

2.  Page  of  the  Psalter 

3.  First  page  of  the  Hymnal 

4.  First  page  of  the  Calendar 


PREFATORY     NOTE 

The  recognition  of  an  ancient  English  Psalter,  hitherto  unnoticed 
and  undescribed,  is  of  sufficient  importance  to  call  for  some 
detailed  account  of  so  interesting  a  manuscript.  A  few  months 
ago  whilst  on  a  brief  visit  to  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Turville  Petre,  at 
Bosworth  Hall,  Husbands-Bosworth,  Leicestershire,  I  was  asked 
to  examine  the  library,  and  in  particular  the  court  rolls  and 
MSS.  in  their  possession.  Amongst  these  latter  there  were  two 
of  considerable  importance,  one  of  which  is  the  Psalter  to  be 
presently  described.  I  had  known  of  the  existence  of  this 
singularly  interesting  volume  from  the  slight  account  given  of  it 
in  Nichols's  History  of  Leicestershire1  which  was  derived  from 
a  notice  of  the  library  furnished  by  Mr.  D.  Wells  to  'The 
Gentleman  s  Magazine  for  1789  (Vol.  LX,  p.  117).  I  was, 
however,  wholly  unprepared  to  see  what  at  once  appeared  to  me 
to  be  one  of  the  most  important  MS.  English  Psalters  in  existence, 
and  which,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  has  up  to  the  present  time 
escaped  notice  by  students  and  archaeologists.  Recognizing  the 
great  interest  of  this  precious  volume,  which  the  owner  allowed 
me  to  take  away,  I  immediately  proposed  to  Mr.  Edmund  Bishop, 
my  friend  and  fellow-worker  during  many  years,  that  we  should 
together  make  a  joint  study  of  the  MS.  In  order  to  avoid  delay, 
and  for  greater  security  in  testing  results,  we  made  a  preliminary 
division  of  the  work  between  us.  Mr.  Bishop  undertook  the 
examination  of  the  Calendar,  and  I  of  the  Psalter  generally. 
The  third  part  of  the  following  study  has  been  carried  out 
together,  but  the  whole  in  all  its  parts  has  been  examined  by 
each,  and  each  of  us  is  responsible  for  the  whole. 

F.  A.  GASQUET. 

Athenaeum  Club. 
May   1,   1907. 

» 11.  P.  464. 


THE  BOSWORTH  PSALTER 


I.  THE  PSALTER 

i.  HISTORY  AND  DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  VOLUME 

THE  Bosworth  Psalter  consists  of  137  folios  (274  pages)  of 
thick  parchment,  each  i$v2  inches  by  io5/6  inches,  in 
gatherings  of  four  sheets  (8  leaves)  bound  in  stout  oak 
boards.  The  first  two  folios,  slightly  smaller  in  size  and  of 
somewhat  finer  vellum,  are  of  a  date  somewhat  later  than  the 
rest  of  the  volume.  They  are  occupied  with  a  very  important 
calendar,  which  will  be  dealt  with  at  some  length  in  the  next 
section. 

Collation.  A  flyleaf,  Calendar,  2fF.,  i8  (lacks  1)  28 — 178,  a 
second  flyleaf. 

On  the  first  page  of  the  calendar  are  the  three  signatures 
1  Thomas  Cantuarien',  'Arundel',  and  'Lumley',  so  well  known 
to  students  of  the  Royal  Collection  of  MSS.  in  the  British 
Museum  as  those  of  Thomas  Cranmer,  Henry  Fitzalan  12th  Earl 
of  Arundel,  and  John,  Lord  Lumley,  who  died  in  1609.  Many 
of  the  manuscripts  collected  by  Archbishop  Cranmer  under  the 
exceptionally  advantageous  circumstances  furnished  by  the  disso- 
lution of  the  monasteries  and  the  religious  changes  generally, 
were  subsequently  acquired  by  the  Earl  of  Arundel.  By  him 
they  were  bequeathed  to  Lord  Lumley,  who  was  his  son-in-law, 
and  soon  after  the  latter's  death  the  whole  collection  was  purchased 
by  King  James  I.  for  his  son  Henry,  Prince  of  Wales;  and  on 
his  death  they  became  part  of  the  royal  library,  which  ultimately 
was  presented  to  the  nation  by  George  II.  and  is  now  in  the 
British  Museum. 

It  seems  certain  that  the  Bosworth  Psalter  at  one  time  formed 
part  of  this  Royal  Collection.  Not  only  is  the  presence  of  the 
three  names  upon  the  first  folio  of  the  MS.  an  indication  of  this, 


but  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  following  entry  in  the 
catalogue  of  the  Lumley  library  (1607-9)  refers  to  this  volume: 
•Theologi.  P.  in  folio — Psaiterium  cum  hymnis  quibusdam 
pulchernme  scriptum  et  paraphrastice  ex  parte  glossatum'. 
As  this  accurately  describes  the  Bosworth  Psalter,  it  may  be 
taken  tor  granted  that  this  volume  was  purchased  by  James  I. 
on  the  death  of  Lord  Lumley  in  1609.  How  it  subsequently 
became  separated  from  the  Royal  Collection  it  is  of  course 
impossible  to  conjecture.  It  may  be  said  to  have  found  its 
way  into  the  library  at  Bosworth  Hall  from  the  family  of 
Fortescue  of  Salden,  in  Buckinghamshire.  The  few  other  MSS. 
in  the  library  certainly  came  to  the  present  owner  in  that  way 
and  we  know  that  in  1762  Elizabeth  Fortescue  was  possessed  of 
the  principal  manor  of  Husbands-Bosworth,  which  had  previously 
been  in  possession  of  her  grand-father,  father  and  brother.  She, 
dying  in  1763,  devised  her  estate  to  Francis  Fortescue  Turville, 
from  whose  descendant  the  present  owner,  Mr.  Turville-Petre, 
lately  inherited  the  estates. 

Although  it  is  impossible  to  trace  the  post-Reformation  history 
of  the  Bosworth  Psalter  beyond  1609,  until  1798,  when  Nichols 
describes  it  as  being  at  Husbands-Bosworth,  an  entry  in  an  early 
catalogue  of  Christ  Church,  Canterbury,  appears  to  refer  to  this 
volume  at  a  very  early  date.  The  list  of  Christ  Church  books 
drawn  up  in  the  thirteenth  century  by  Prior  Henry  of  Estry,  and 
printed  by  Dr.  Montague  James  in  his  Ancient  Libraries  of  Dover 
and  Canterbury  has  as  item  1776,  the  following:  Psaiterium  cum 
hympnario.  In  itself  this  may  appear  a  rather  indefinite  description, 
but  the  existence  of  an  early  psalter  with  the  full  collection  of 
Church  hymns  joined  to  it,  so  far  as  our  present  knowledge 
extends,  is  unique,  and  we  may  safely  conjecture  therefore  that 
this  MS.  is  the  very  volume  here  referred  to. 

Each  verse  of  the  psalms  has  a  red  initial:  and  the  first  verses 
of  the  psalms  have  initial  letters  executed  in  soft  colours  and  about 
four  lines  in  height.  The  whole  writing  occupies  rather  more  than 
12  inches  by  7  inches  with  twenty-five  lines  to  the  page.  Where 
there  are  divisions  to  be  made  in  the  psalms,  etc.,  for  liturgical 
purposes,  as  will  be  subsequently  explained,  these  are  indicated  by 
slightly  larger  initial  letters.     The  hymnal  and  the  canticles  which 


PLATE    I 


Ll  mfinepiu! 


udniTirti't 


ESJWWQVITTm:^ 


.•-.- 


JU/fl 


,  lDVCV/lT\M5BilT 


INITIAL   OF      51st   PSALM 


(2)  The  Canticles  used  at  Lauds  with  the  psalms  in  the 
liturgical  Office  and  the  Benedicts,  Magnificat  and  Nunc  dimittisy 
Te  Dam  etc.  commonly  found  at  the  end  of  such  psalters. 
This  portion  of  the  MS.  takes  up  8  folios  of  the  book.  On 
folio  ioo,  there  is  a  short  litany,  with  prayers  written  at  some 
date  Liter  than   the  rest  *. 

(})  A  complete  Hymnal,  comprising  101  hymns  for  the  various 
canonical  hours  and  seasons,  occupies  24  folios,  and  on  the 
reverse  of  folio  124  is  a  striking  sketch  of  a  Christ  in  Majesty, 
which  was  never  finished;  at  some  date  or  other,  as  it  seems  to 
us,  this  fine  drawing  has  been  gone  over  with  a  pencil. 

(4)  The  Canticles  for  the  3rd  nocturn  of  the  monastic  Office 
arranged  in  sets  of  three  and  written  in  double  columns.  These 
occupy  7  more  folios. 

(5)' The  Preface  and  Canon  of  the  Mass,  written  probably 
late  in  the  eleventh  century,  take  3  folios,  and  these  are  followed 
by  the  Mass  of  the  Blessed  Trinity  with  neums  of  about  the 
same  date. 

It  will  be  convenient  to  speak  of  each  of  these  divisions  of 
the  Bosworth  Psalter  in  their  order. 

3.  THE  PSALMS 

The  version  of  the  psalms  is  that  known  as  the  Roman,  which 
in  certain  places  has  been  corrected  at  some  later  period  into  the 
Gallican.  St.  Jerome  in  the  first  instance  corrected  the  Latin 
version  of  the  psalter  then  in  common  use  in  the  churches,  by 
the  Septuagint,  and  this  was  at  once  commonly  adopted  in  the 
churches  of  Rome  and  Italy  and  hence  called  the  Roman.  Later 
on  he  translated  the  Septuagint  Greek  version  into  Latin,  bringing 
it  into  partial  agreement  with  the  Hebrew.  To  make  it  clear, 
where  the  version  was  not  exactly  literal  he  introduced  into  this 
second  recension  certain  signs,  stars,  asterisks,  and  colons  etc.,  to 
mark  where  the  words  or  phrases  were  not  to  be  found  in  the 
Hebrew  or  Septuagint,  but  had  been  introduced  to  amplify  or 
explain  the  true  meaning  of  the  psalms.     This  second  recension, 

1  The  following  taints  only  ire  named  in  this  litany  which  it  obviously  no  part  of  the 
original  book:  Michael,  Gabriel,  Raphael,  John,  Peter,  Paul,  Andrew,  John,  Stephen,  Laurence, 
Ypolitut,  Benedict,  Martin,  Cuthbert,  Felicitai,  Perpetua,  Scolastica. 


PLATE   II 


r 


ViiHiti  tMiq-  bwifOictfifbmiOicu  yaupfyljw  junijmbo  vunify  . 
c,  aahdorfr  mis  induam  nilurmu?-'  fcf»n  mir  exulmnonp- 

pxubaibutrc  . 
1  LUc^uca  copnu  dauid-  vujuiuituitynan^xpo  meoT 
J  Tiinucos  nus  induam  coimmotn?-'  sup  iprum  autfln 

flojipoiv  rcipaino  mm 


iiunii  locunOum 


iW  quarn  boiuim  ttcji 
liabicane-  -cjas  inunum- 
"cTai'v"   imsiiftini  incayitv.tjd  o«?Sdn-»rc  [libapbabqjttmaapon 
Quoo  ^escfiiOir  viopa     iiesamlTiu  auf'siarc  ]ios 

htiimoTi    an/  iapcaidrc  nnnontvm  sion  ■ 
Qjn  illic  inuiKVuiir  chis  luMuOH'uoim'lcm^u.uvq-miTUTi. 

upa*  ;.._.!,„-,;       mil,  HfT        >pS»«n 

coe  nunc  IniuViucv  diiYn-'  aifi]-  jlpm  dill 

-Lrfn^InS  on  Up-  >p.Unrn        tnam, ',..,....        '■  , 

Qju  sTirar  m  domo  Otii-  inarfuf* domaj  oj  np.i  - 

Tn  nocnt).  fxrolhrv-  muimy  Mjuq-  in  jar 'ttbwuoicicvOjnij 

\  Ui-Hiy  *         '!•     .-,.,I,tr..       „  ptnt  ,».,    nnnplmi        ..rcyc.  -\  !*r.K,.. 


A/BTINOWlNltv^ESERVD/^l 


adace  OtTm  quonm  bmi^imy  est:-  pnill  itv-nonnni 
etur  anoiiuiiii  simui]  C5X. • 
CX»^i  mcob  ehsnc-  '-ibi  3tfy-*  q-pt  MiVtf^PS&ionlJn  sibi  • 


ORDINARY    INITIAL   LETTERS   AND    LARGE    HEADING    OF 
NEW   DAY'S   PSALMS 


which  is  the  one  now  known  as  the  Vulgate,  was  adopted  by  the 
churches  of  Gaul  for  the  divine  Office  and  for  this  reason  it 
became  known  as  the  *  Gallican  version  \  The  first  corrected 
version  of  St.  Jerome — the  Roman — was  still  however  said  in 
Rome  itself,  as  well  as  elsewhere  in  Italy.  Gradually  even  in 
Italy  the  second  recension — the  Gallican,  or  version  of  the 
Vulgate — superseded  the  Roman  except  in  St.  Peter's  itself, 
where  its  use  is  retained  even  to  the  present  day.1 

On  the  conversion  of  England  St.  Augustine,  coming  from 
Rome  itself,  naturally  brought  into  the  country  with  him  the 
recension  then  in  use  in  the  Eternal  City;  namely  the  Roman. 
Thus  the  celebrated  Cotton  MS.  Psalter  c  Vespasian  A  i  '  in  the 
British  Museum  is  almost  certainly  a  very  early  copy,  made  in 
England,  of  the  actual  book  of  the  psalms,  which  the  apostle  of 
our  race  is  known  to  have  brought  to  Canterbury.  According 
to  the  description  given  by  the  monk  Elmham  this  volume  was 
kept  on  the  high  altar  at  St.  Augustine's  monastery,  Canterbury, 
as  a  precious  memorial  of  the  saint.  The  version  is  the  Roman 
throughout,  and  so  too  is  that  of  another  MS.  Psalter  in  the 
British  Museum  (Royal  MS.  2.  B.  v.),  which  has  been  attributed 
to  Winchester  and  is  supposed  to  have  been  written  in  the  first 
half  of  the  tenth  century. 

It  would  seem  probable  that  the  use  in  the  public  recitation 
of  the  Church  Office  of  the  Roman  version,  thus  introduced  into 
England  by  the  first  missionaries,  was  maintained,  except  perhaps 
in  isolated  instances,  until  the  Norman  Conquest.3  Quotations 
from  the  psalms  in  the  homilies  of  St.  Bede  show  that  he  made 
use  of  this  Roman  version  at  Jarrow,  and  we  learn  from  the  life 
of  St.  Wilfrid,  that  on  coming  to  Canterbury  he  abandoned  the 
use  of  the  version  of  the  psalms  he  had  learnt  from  the  Scottic 
missionaries  and  adopted  the  version  he  found  in  use  there, 
which  was  of  course  the  Roman. 

At  the  time  of  the  Norman  Conquest  it  became  necessary  to 
take  steps  to  introduce  into  the  public  Church-service  the  use  of 

1  There  was  a  third  version  made  by  St.  Jerome  from  the  Hebrew;  with  this  we  hare 
no  concern  here. 

*  It  is  probable  that  if  erer  a  really  critical  edition  of  the  Raman  Psalter  is  undertaken,  it  i* 
in  England  that  the  means  for  carrying  it  out  must  be  sought. 


the  Gallican  version  which  by  this  time  had  become  universal  on 
the  continent,  except  in  Rome,  and  which  the  new  masters  who 
now  controlled  England  used.  It  is  obvious  that  the  public 
recitation  of  both  the  versions  was  impossible,  and  it  was  only 
natural  that  the  foreign  conquerors  should  insist  upon  that  to 
which  they  were  accustomed  in  their  own  country.  We  know, 
in  the  case  of  Glastonbury,  for  example,  that  the  change  was  not 
popular.  In  1082  the  first  Norman  abbot,  Thurstin,  was 
appointed  to  that  monastery.  Difficulties  were  soon  caused  by 
his  '  letting  fall  many  ancient  and  laudable  customs  of  the 
monastery  and  changing  some  into  those  of  his  own  country.  .  . 
Among  other  things,  disliking  the  Gregorian  song  (used)  in  the 
church,  he  would  compel  the  monks  to  leave  off  the  same  and 
to  learn  and  sing  the  notes  of  one  William  of  Fescamp.  This 
they  resented  as  being  grown  old  in  the  use  of  this  song  and  in 
their  Office  according  to  the  use  of  the  Roman  Church.' 

Evidences  of  this  change  of  version  at  this  time  appear  on 
the  face  of  several  of  the  MSS.  which  have  come  down  to  us: 
the  supposed  Winchester  MS.  (Royal  MS.  2.  B.  V.),  which  was 
written  about  the  middle  of  the  tenth  century,  is  originally  a  MS. 
of  the  Roman  version,  but  at  some  subsequent  date  it  has  been 
partially  corrected  into  the  Gallican.  In  the  first  psalm  for 
instance  the  original  word  {  fecerit '  has  been  changed  into  l  faciet', 
and  in  the  Cum  invocarem  (ps.  4.)  the  words  distinctive  of  the 
Roman  version  have  been  scratched  out,  although  the  words  of 
the  Gallican  have  not  been  written  in. 

So  too  Harl.  MS.  603  is  a  curious  example  of  this  change  of 
the  old  for  the  new.  The  MS.  is  attributed  to  some  early  period 
in  the  eleventh  century.  Each  psalm  is  illustrated  with  fine 
large  drawings  obviously  copied  from  those  of  the  Utrecht 
Psalter.  The  version  of  the  psalms  in  the  original — the  celebrated 
Utrecht  Psalter — is  the  Gallican,  and  this  is  to  be  expected  as  it 
was  doubdess  written  on  the  continent.  In  the  case  of  the 
Harley  Psalter,  on  the  other  hand,  which  was  almost  certainly 
made  at  Canterbury,  although  the  pictures  are  copied,  the  version 
of  the  first  part  is  Roman.  Up  to  psalm  100  this  version  is 
always  maintained,  although  the  illustrations  are  not  always  in 
the  same  style  and  some  pages  have  been  left  blank,  the  artist 
evidently  not  having  been  at  work  for  some  time  and  from  some 
8 


cause  or  other.  The  psalms  98  and  99  are  missing;  from  ps.  100 
to  ps.  in  the  pictures  are  in  the  original  and  best  style;  but 
from  ps.  100  the  Gallican  version  is  used,  in  place  of  the  Roman. 
There  are  indications,  however,  that  the  scribe  was  not  quite 
used  to  the  new  version.  For  instance,  one  blind  mistake  shows 
this  and  also  that  the  scribe  actually  had  before  him  the  Utrecht 
Psalter:  In  ps.  101  (v.  4.)  of  the  latter  we  read  *  Et  ossa  mea 
sicut  gremium  (for  cremiwn)  aruerunt ',  the  original  scribe  having 
added  by  mistake  the  short  tail  to  the  uncial  '  C  '  by  which  the 
uncial  '  G  '  was  made.  The  scribe  in  the  Harley  Psalter  has 
copied  the  mistake  with  a  good  Saxon  (  G  \ 

Other  examples  could  be  given  of  the  way  in  which  the  old 
English  Roman  versions  of  the  psalms  were  in  the  course  of  the 
eleventh  century  corrected  into  the  Gallican  version,  to  which 
alone  the  Norman  conquerors  were  used,  but  sufficient  has  been 
said  to  explain  what  may  now  be  set  down  about  the  psalms  in 
the  Bosworth  Psalter. 

The  version  of  the  psalms  in  this  Psalter  is  the  Roman 
throughout.  Some  time  in  the  twelfth  or  thirteenth  century 
probably  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  utilize  the  pages  of  this 
fine  volume  for  the  purpose  of  writing  a  glossed  commentary. 
In  order  to  do  this  it  became  necessary  to  change  the  old  version 
into  the  version  then  in  use — the  Gallican,  and  in  all  places 
where  the  commentary  has  been  written  the  version  has  been 
changed.  This  is  the  case  with  psalms  1  to  39,  which  occupy 
the  first  22  folios  and  in  other  places  some  10  folios.  The 
corrections  in  the  text  are  made  in  various  ways:  the  word  is 
erased  altogether  as  the  word  *  fuit '  in  the  large  letters  on  folio  1, 
which  is  not  in  the  Gallican  version:  the  word  to  be  deleted  is 
underlined,  as  in  the  case  of  c  fecerit '  (fol.  1.  b.)  and  the  word 
of  the  Gallican  'faciet'  is  written  above.  So  in  ps.  17,  v.  21, 
the  original  has  'innocentiam'  which  is  underlined  and  'puritatem' 
set  above  it,  and  in  verse  40  the  word  '  omnes '  is  lined  as 
indicating  its  deletion.  The  psalms  33  and  71  are  good  examples 
of  the  corrections  necessary  to  alter  the  Roman  into  the  Gallican. 
As  these  corrections  occur  only  when  the  glossed  commentary  is 
written,  it  may  be  taken  as  granted  that  the  changes  were  made  for 
the  purpose  of  the  gloss.  Of  the  rest  of  the  psalms  some  38  have 
an  interlinear  gloss  in  Anglo-Saxon;  but  no  portion  of  the  Psalter 

9 

A 


used  for  the  glossed   commentary    has    any    Saxon    translation. 

The  very  special — indeed  unique — interest  attaching  to  the 
Bosworth  Psalter,  is  the  fact  that  the  psalms  are  written  for  the 
purpose  of  being  used  in  the  recitation  of  the  Benedictine  Office. 
On  turning  over  the  leaves  of  the  volume  the  inquirer  cannot 
f.iil  to  notice  that  certain  psalms  have  large  capitals  for  the  first 
few  words,  and  that  verses  in  some  special  cases  have  larger 
initial  letters  with  no  very  obvious  reason  to  the  ordinary  student. 
But  to  any  one  acquainted  with  the  monastic  Office  the  meaning  is 
plain.  The  beginning  words  of  the  20th  psalm  Domine  in  virtute, 
for  example,  are  in  big  letters  because  it  is  the  first  psalm  of  the 
Matins  for  Sunday.  In  the  same  way  the  26th  psalm  shows  by 
the  large  lettering  that  it  is  the  first  psalm  of  the  second  nocturn 
for  the  same  and  so  too  psalm  32  is  noted  with  the  same 

lettering  as  being  the  first  psalm  at  Matins  of  Monday;  psalm  45 
as  the  first  of  Tuesday;  psalm  68  as  the  first  of  Wednesday, 
and  so  on. 

Again  in  psalm  68,  (Salvum  me  fac)  there  is,  at  a  verse  about 
half  way  through  the  psalm,  an  initial  letter — an  E — of  consider- 
ably larger  size  than  the  rest.  This  is  where  the  division  of  the 
psalm  is  made  in  the  monastic  Office  of  Matins  for  Wednesday. 
In  the  same  way  the  division  of  the  77th  psalm  in  the  Matins 
of  Thursday  is  indicated  by  a  capital  initial  letter.  So  too  psalms 
138,  143,  144  are  divided  into  two  portions  according  to  the 
direction  in  St.  Benedict's  Rule:  '  Psalmi  dividendi  sunt,  centesi- 
mus  trigesimus  octavus,  et  centesimus  quadragesimus  tertius  et 
centesimus  quadragesimus  quartus.'1  In  regard  to  the  last  of 
these  three  the  first  word  of  the  division  in  the  Bosworth  Psalter, 
'  Confiteantur ',  is  in  large  painted  capitals,  as  it  is  the  beginning 
of  the  vesper  psalms  for  Saturday,  which  Office  formed  of  course 
the  beginning  of  the  Sunday  observance.  At  the  division  of  the 
143rd  psalm  in  the  Psalter  are  the  words:  c  Divisio  institutionis 
Benedict] ',  that  is,  the  division  ordered  in  St.  Benedict's  Rule,  as 
has  been  pointed  out. 

It  seems  clear  from  all  this  that  the  Bosworth  Psalter  was 
expressly  designed  and  made  for  the  actual  recitation  of  the 
Office  according  to  the  Rule  of  St.  Benedict.     That  it  has  been 

1  Cap.  rriii. 
IO 


well  used  appears  from  the  discoloured  lower  corners  of  the 
pages  as  contrasted  with  the  upper  ones.  Certain  marks  for 
pauses  in  recitation  and  certain  accents,  to  prevent  mistakes  in 
quantity  or  to  assure  the  pronunciation  of  short  syllables  which 
might  otherwise  suffer  elision,  suggest,  as  does  also  the  size  of 
the  volume,  that  this  psalter  was  made  for  use  in  public  recitation. 
This  supposition  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  in  the  Venite 
psalm,  which  forms  the  Invitatory  of  Matins,  neums  added 
possibly  somewhat  later,  give  the  tone  to  which  it  was  to  be  sung. 
Indeed  the  neums  throughout  the  volume  point  to  the  same 
conclusion. 

4.  THE  CANTICLES  OF  LAUDS 

The  Canticles  at  Lauds  in  the  Bosworth  Psalter  are  the  same 
as  are  ordinarily  found  in  similar  manuscripts.  They  are  taken 
from  various  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  and  are  used  as  one  of 
the  psalms  at  Lauds  in  the  Office  of  the  Roman  Church.  Saint 
Benedict  adopted  the  practice  and  directed  (cap.  xiii.)  { that  the 
Canticle  out  of  the  Prophet  be  said,  each  on  its  own  day,  according 
to  the  practice  of  the  Roman  Church  '  and  of  course  they  form 
part  of  the  Benedictine  Office  at  the  present  day.  Thus  the 
Psalter  gives  in  order  (1)  Confitebor  tibi  Domine  the  canticle  from 
Isaias  (cap.  xii.)  for  Lauds  of  Monday.  (2)  Ego  dixi  the  canticle 
of  Ezechias  from  Isaias  (cap.  xxxviii.)  for  Tuesday.  (3)  Exsultavit 
cor  meum^  the  canticle  of  Anna,  the  mother  of  Samuel,  from  the 
First  Book  of  Kings  (cap.  ii.)  for  Wednesday.  (4)  Cantemus 
Domino ,  canticle  of  Moses  from  Exodus  (cap.  xv.)  for  Thursday. 
(5)  Domine  audivi  auditumy  the  canticle  of  the  prophet  Habacuc 
(cap.  iii.)  for  Friday.  (6)  Attende  cesium  et  loquar,  the  canticle  of 
Deuteronomy  (cap.  xxxii.)  for  Saturday,  and  (7)  the  Benedicite  for 
Sunday.  In  regard  to  the  canticle  Attende  cesium  for  Saturday, 
on  account  of  its  length  St.  Benedict  directed  that  it  should  be 
divided  and  take  the  place  of  two  psalms.  Accordingly  in  the 
Bosworth  Psalter,  at  the  usual  place  of  division  there  is  the 
following  rubric:  l  Divisio  beati  Benedicti.'  The  version  used 
in  the  Bosworth  Psalter  is  practically  the  same  as  that  found  in 
Vespasian  A  1,  and  other  early  English  manuscripts.  It  differs 
from  the  vulgate  version  and  is  most  like  that  of  the  versio  antiqua, 

II 


These  canticles  are  followed  in  order  by  the  Quicumque  vult 
(the  Athanasian  Creed);  the  Te  Deum;  Magnificat;  Benedictus  and 
Nunc  dmittiSy  all  with  Anglo-Saxon  interlinear  glosses,  and  by 
a  Litany  of  the  Saints,  written  at  a  later  period. 

5.  THE  HYMNAL 

This  section  of  the  Bosworth  MS.  is  unique  in  connection  with 
an  Anglo-Saxon  psalter.  It  affords  an  additional  proof  that  the 
volume  was  intended  for  use  in  the  public  recitation  of  the 
Divine  Office.  There  are  in  this  part  about  one  hundred  hymns 
for  the  canonical  hours  during  the  course  of  the  year,  and  for 
fe.ists  of  Saints.  They  are  practically  the  same  as  those  in  the 
Anglo-Saxju  Hymnarium  published  by  the  Surtees  Society  (Vol. 

.)  from  MSS.  of  a  considerably  later  date.  The  only  hymn 
occurring  in  Bosworth  and  not  in  the  Surtees  volume  is  one  for 
feasts  of  confessors,  beginning  (  Summe  confessor  sacer  et  sacer- 
dos,'  which  is  found  not  only  in  the  Mozarabic  Breviary  and 
the  Mozarabic  Psalter  recently  published  by  the  Henry  Bradshaw 
Society,  but  also  in  tenth  century  collections  of  hymns  elsewhere 
on    the  continent. 

It  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  Bosworth  hymnal  contains 
hymns  for  no  English  Saints.1 

Three  of  the  hymns  have  musical  notation  written  in  fine 
neums.  These  are  c  Lucis  Creator  optime  '  (Vespers  of  Sunday 
throughout  the  year),  *  Iste  confessor'  and 'Christe  splendor 
glorie '  (both  for  feasts  of  confessors).  The  tones  of  the  first 
and  third  have  not  yet  been  identified.  The  second,  c  Iste 
confessor ',  agrees  almost  exactly  with  the  melody  of  the  same 
hymn  in  a  Worcester  MS.  of  the  thirteenth  century,2  and,  though 
the  variants  are  here  greater,  with  that  given  from  a  Sarum 
source  in  '  Plainsong  Hymn  Melodies  \3 

1  The  following  hymns  for  Saints'  days  printed  in  the  Surtees  volume  are  absent  from 
Bosworth:  St.  Dunstan,  St,  Augustine  of  Canterbury,  the  Assumption,  St.  Gregory  (a  special 
verse   in   hymn   for   Apostles)   and    St.   Edmund   the   king. 

'  Worcester    Cathedral    Library,    MS.    160. 

•p.   17,   No.   59.     Published  by  the   Plainsong  and   Mediaeval   Music  Society. 


12 


PLATE   III 


ubrrc  libido  Tortdl^unr 

FlH 

pnnnpjiie-iirair  noxuiS 

j ..  ■ 

^nJ$*W~^\  I 

N  PjWa  rrc  up!  lubpittL- 

cojnyxisp  n-jTi  co-pwopis 
j-n^nuam  aufpni  i^ulntr 

■...  * 

MODIERVM 

ipri  cpwnftmip  ucpius 
O  b/ioc  pFOfiiiprt>p  .cjutttutmir 

emmuin  nuo  munour 

iru  ppntvpa  tip  a  deliic;r 

e\xirc  conoiois-' 

urge-  -pipthnir  commoba-- 

Utflauo  pe&UjK$iy  conoiron' 

notir  bpiiKjmis  ami-niar- 

no*,  mono*-  iiirni  bkflifir- 

Qjio  cnpinr  ami  exules- 

)  ulp]'  pjiocul  ro]iv>ojut>us- 

^scn  ip5i  rpul>t?s 

*      sup^omus  omnfr   ocius 

nx:  pjierrolunnip  cl]imu 

\    tfc  noccv-  aufjiaimts  y i u hi  • 

nipu>|-  rananiur  ^opip- 

*   1                   < 

P  perm  pacfp  pnrjiim1-- 

•i  ^JSJ  par  v»]iae5  u<:auOitrc 

putpirnnp-  compup  imicp-- 

niammtP  oexrpain  pajiju<;ur 

ciiiii  rpu  pupaayxn- 

trcpxpiaror  sop;>ikur- 

penally*  ^oiinn*rainmn- 

ptftttrc:  pployuini  seoilutr-   ^ 

^       ^   'y'liiniira'aini.Tn.rrnia.- 

Vrquic|ut?-  racpcrapnino-  mm 

bc^':     xl^un1  plpilanK>iuip 

lumis  dm  Tfhrporu?'      \ 

^^     _^  iiorcp-CtitfiitKtHiipti^r 

hopis  cjmftis  ppaflimur-    ^ 

ft-ctrnpopil  »>U5  rthipopa 

<>omr  bvtcas  munfjitfc^Vl 

f     ux:  iillwies   caradiuTn- 

I  ttm  nunc  ptn^itmclitpturr  # 

p  peco  oiw  mm  saiwrc- 

ttp  -pcfailaTnur  arcanm  •    * 

nocns  pporundp-mri^u 

FIRST    PAGE    OK    THE    HYMNAL 


Special  interest  attaches  to  this  portion  of  the  Bosworth  MS., 
since  it  gives  us  the  earliest  known  form  of  the  Hymnal  used 
in    England. 

6.  THE  CANTICLES  FOR  THE  THIRD  NOCTURN 

Saint  Benedict  in  his  Rule  (cap.  xi.)  directs  that  when  the  Matins 
are  said  with  three  nocturns,  after  the  close  of  the  second  nocturn 
lessons,  '  three  Canticles  from  the  Prophets,  such  as  the  abbot 
shall  appoint  are  to  be  sung.'  The  discretion  thus  left  to  the 
abbot  was  in  practice  soon  abrogated  in  favour  of  fixed  canticles 
for  the  third  nocturn.  These  were  apparently  brought  together 
and  written  at  the  end  of  the  hymnals.  Thus  Aelfric  in  his 
letter  to  Eynesham  (circa  1005)  on  the  use  of  the  Concordia 
Regu/aris1  says  that  { three  canticles  proper  to  the  time  or  festival ' 
are  to  be  sung  'as  they  are  set  forth  in  the  hymnals.'  In  two 
early  hymnals  in  the  British  Museum  (Julius  A  VI  and  Vesp. 
D  XII)  these  selected  canticles  may  be  found  following  the 
hymns.  It  is  doubtless  because  the  hymnal  is  given  in  the 
Bosworth  Psalter,  that  in  accordance  with  this  rule  the  Canticles 
for  the  third  nocturn  also  appear  there,  and  they  complete  the 
volume  as  a  full  liturgical  book. 

As  they  are  set  forth  in  the  MS.  they  are  the  following: 

I.     De  Dominicis  per  Annum. 

1.  Domine  miserere  nostri.     (Is.  cap.  xxxviii.) 

2.  Audite  qui  longe  estis.     (Ejusdem.) 

3.  Miserere  Domine  plebi  tuae     (Ecclus.  cap.  xxxviii.) 

II.     De  Adventu  Domini. 

1.  Confortate  manus  dissolutas.     (Is.  cap.  xxxv.) 

2.  Consolamini,  consolamini.      (Ejusd.  cap.  xl.) 

3.  Juravit  Dominus.     (Ejusd.  cap.  lxii.) 

III.     In  Nativitate  Domini  nostri. 

1.  Populus  qui  sedebat.     (Is.  cap.  ix.) 

2.  Laetare  Hierusalem.     (Ejusd.  cap.  lxvi.) 

3.  Urbs  fortitudinis.     (Ejusd.  cap.  xxvi.) 

1  Printed  in  the  Obedientiary  Rolls  of  Winchetter%  edited  for  the  Hampshire  Recora  Sot.  bf 
Detn  Kitehin  pp.  173-86. 

*3 


IV.  Cantica  in  Septuagesima. 
i.  Deducant  oculi  mei.     (Jer.  cap.  xiv.) 

2.  Recordare  Domine.     (Thren.  v.) 

3.  Tollam  vos  de  gentibus.     (Ezech.  cap.  xxxvi.) 

V.  De  Resurrectione  Domini. 

1.  Quis  est  iste  qui  venit.     (Is.  cap.  lxiii.) 

2.  Venitc  rcvertamur  ad  Dominum.     (Osee,  cap.  vi.) 

3.  Expccta  me  dicit  Dominus.     (Soph.  cap.  iii.) 

VI.     De  omnibus  Apostolis. 

1.  Qui  sponte  obtulistis  de  Israel.     (Judic.  cap.  v.) 

2.  Qui  propria  voluntate  optulistis.      (Ejusdem.) 

3.  Vos  sancti  Domini  vocabimini.      (Is.  lxi.) 

VII.      Cantica  (de  Confessoribus.) 

1.  Benedictus  vir  qui  confidit.     (Jer.  cap.  xvii.) 

2.  Beatus  vir  qui  inventus  est.     (Ecclus.  cap.  xxxi.) 

3.  Ecce  servus  meus  suscipiam.     (Is.  cap.  xlii. 

VIII.     De  Virginibus. 

1.  Audite  me  divini  fructus.     (Ecclus.  cap.  xxxix.) 

2.  Lauda  filia  Sion.     (Soph.  cap.  iii.) 

3.  Gaude  et  lastare  filia  Sion.     (Zach.  cap.  ii.) 

It  is  necessary  to  add  that  these  Canticles,  as  in  the  case  of 
those  used  at  Lauds,  are  not  from  the  Vulgate  version  but  are 
most  like  the  Antiqua. 

The  two  remaining  items  of  this  important  MS.  do  not 
require  any  notice  here:  the  copy  of  the  Preface,  Canon  of  the 
Mass  and  the  late  Mass  of  the  Holy  Trinity  with  neums.  We 
may  be  excused  if  we  again  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  Bosworth 
Psalter  is  in  more  ways  than  one  unique  among  similar  English 
books,  and  that  more  than  any  other  known  early  manuscript, 
it  partakes  of  the  character  of  a  complete  volume  for  the  public 
recitation  of  the  Divine  Office  by  those  who  follow  the  Rule 
of  St.  Benedict. 


H 


II.  THE  CALENDAR 

OF  the  English  calendars  of  the  tenth  and  eleventh  centuries 
one,  that  found  in  the  so-called  Leofric  Missal,  bears 
so  close  a  resemblance  to  the  calendar  of  the  Bosworth 
Psalter,  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  both  are  representatives 
of  a  common  original.  As  this  original  is  more  faithfully- 
preserved  in  the  calendar  of  the  Leofric  Missal,  it  is  of  importance 
for  the  present  enquiry  first  of  all  to  come  to  a  clear  understanding 
of  the  character  of  this  latter  document;  and  then  we  may  be  able  to 
proceed,  with  such  safety  as  acquired  knowledge  may  reasonably 
promise,  to  a  due  appreciation  of  the  calendar  in  the  Bosworth 
Psalter.  The  editor  of  the  Leofric  Missal  has  rightly  explained 
in  his  Introduction  (see  pp.  xxvii,  xliii-liv)  that  the  calendar 
which  he  prints  is  really  a  calendar  of  Glastonbury  and  was 
written  before  the  close  of  the  tenth  century.  Hereafter  then  it 
will  be  designated  as  c  G '  whilst  the  calendar  contained  in  the 
Bosworth  Psalter  will  be  called  *  B  '. 

i.     THE  GLASTONBURY  CALENDAR 

A  feature  common  to  G  and  B  is  peculiar  to  them  among  the 
extant  calendars  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  period;  it  is  the  presence 
of  the  letter  (  F '  or  {  S '  prefixed  to  the  names  of  certain  saints. 
No  time  will  be  spent  here  in  discussing,  or  guessing,  the  precise 
words  which  these  letters  are  intended  to  represent;  but  it  is  of 
importance  to  recognize  what  it  is  they  are  meant  to  designate. 
As  to  this  the  explanation  is  simple  and  not  open  to  doubt;  they 
designate  the  contents  of  the  Sanctorale — that  is,  the  collection  of 
proper  masses  of  saints — of  the  mass-book  for  which  the  calendar 
was  written.  By  *  proper  mass  '  is  meant  a  mass  the  prayers  of 
which  are  special,  and  peculiar  to  a  particular  saint.  To  under- 
stand the  case  of  the  calendar  G  it  is  necessary  to  go  higher  up 
and  start  from  the  point  to  which  all  the  mediaeval  mass-books 
trace  up  their  origin. 

When  Charlemagne  (about  a.  d.  800  or  a  few  years  before) 
introduced  into,  or  imposed  on,  the  churches  of  his  dominions 

15 


the  Sacramentary  (or  mass-book)  then  in  use  in  Rome  and  now 
commonly  called  the  Gregorianum,  a  Supplement  was  compiled 
under  his  directions  or  patronage,  almost  certainly  by  Alcuin,  to 
facilitate  the  use  and  extension  of  this  mass-book  among  his 
subjects.  In  that  Supplement  no  addition  whatever  was  made  to 
the  body  of  proper  masses  for  saints  contained  in  the  Roman 
book.  But  very  soon  afterwards  further  proper  masses  for  saints 
began  to  be  added  on  the  fly-leaves  of  the  missals,  or  as  an 
additional  supplement.  The  selection,  or  collection,  of  these 
additional  masses  of  saints  varied  from  MS.  to  MS.  or  church  to 
church,  according  to  individual  or  local  preferences.  By  the 
middle  of  the  ninth  century  such  additional  masses  began  to  be 
intercalated  at  their  proper  places  according  to  the  date  of  the 
feast,  in  the  Sanctorale  of  the  Gregorianum  itself. 

With  this  preliminary  explanation  the  symbols  '  F  '  and  '  S  ' 
become  clear,  and  to  the  calendar  entries  marked  with  these 
symbols  in  G  attention  is  for  the  present  to  be  understood 
as  restricted. 

(i)  The  entries  marked  with  these  symbols  comprise  in  the 
first  place  the  whole  series  of  the  masses  of  saints  and  masses  for 
fixed  feasts  contained  in  the  Sacramentary  called  the  Gregorianum^ 
eighty-nine  in  number,  with  the  nine  exceptions  detailed  in  the 
footnote.  It  is  easy  to  see  a  reason  for  exception  in  nearly  all  of 
these  nine  cases.2  The  Gregorian  Sanctorale^  or  body  of  saints' 
masses,  is  thus  the  great  basis  of  the  calendar  G  and  of  the 
mass-book  for  which  it  was  written. 

1  By  Gregorianum  is  meant  that  document  only  which  is  described  and  accounted  for  in  an 
article  in  the  Journal  of  Theological  Studies  Tol.  iv.  p.  4.1 1  seqq. 

*  Eight  names  are  omitted:  28  June  St.  Leo;  1  Aug.  St.  Peter's  Chains;  14  Aug.  the  Vigil 
of  the  Assumption;  29  Aug.  St.  Sabina;  1  Not.  St.  Caesarius;  23  Not.  St.  Fclicitas;  29  Not. 
St.  Saturninus;  25  Dec.  St.  Anastasia.  St.  Leo,  the  Vigil  of  the  Assumption,  St.  Fclicitas, 
St.  Saturninus  and  St.  Anastasia  are  doubtless  omitted  because  on  these  days  there  are  two  masses 
for  different  feasts  in  the  Gregorianum  and  '  G  '  has  preferred  to  give  only  one.  St.  Sabina  and 
St.  Caesarius  fall  out  on  account  of  the  newer  feasts  (both  of  a  high  grade)  falling  on  their  dayi 
Tii:  All  Saints  and  the  Beheading  of  St.  John  Baptist.  For  the  omission  of  St.  Peter's  Chains 
no  explanation  is  necessary  here  further  than  this,  that  as  a  fact  the  feast  is  absent  from  several 
Anglo-Saxon  calendars  and  the  omission  seems  from  an  early  date  traditional.  In  regard  to  the 
ninth  case,  the  Vigil  of  St.  Laurence  is  entered  at  9  Aug.  but  no  letter  '  S'  is  prefixed. 

16 


(2)  Into  this  Gregorian  Sanctorale  have  been  introduced  several 
masses  drawn  from  mass-books  in  use  in  France  before  the  time 
of  Charlemagne.  Such  masses  fall  into  two  categories  :  (a)  those 
found  in  the  older  Roman  mass-book  called  the  Gelasianum^  and 
introduced  with  that  book  from  Rome  into  France  at  an  early 
period;  and  {¥)  those  masses  which  in  imitation  of  Roman  models 
were  written  for  feasts  actually  instituted  in  France  in  the  course 
of  the  eighth  (or  in  some  cases  indeed  in  the  seventh)  century. 
For  the  present  purpose  it  is  not  necessary  to  distinguish  between 
these  two  categories.  The  symbols  '  F  '  and  '  S  '  given  in  the 
calendar  G  shew  that  twenty-one  of  such  masses  were  included 
in  its  mass-book.     They  are  the  following: 

13  Jan.    Octave  of  Epiphany       20  Sept.  Vigil  of  St.  Matthew 

25 


Conversion  of  St.  Paul 
22  Feb.   Chair  of  St.  Peter  (at 

Antioch) 
3  May  Invention      of     Holy 

Cross 
9  June  SS.  Primus  &  Felician 

12     „       SS.  Basilides  etc. 
25  July   St.  James  Apostle 


21 

22 

30 


St.  Matthew 
St.  Maurice  and  Com- 
panions 
St.  Jerome 


17  Aug.  Octave  of  St.  Laurence   28 


*5 
29 


9  Sept. 


St.  Bartholomew 

Beheading  of  St.  John 

Baptist 

St.  Gorgonius 


9  Oct.    St.   Denis   and    Com- 
panions 
18    „      St.  Luke 
2  7    a      Vigil    of    SS.    Simon 
and  Jude 
SS.  Simon  and  Jude 


7  Dec.   Octave  of  St.  Andrew 


21 


St.  Thomas  Apostle 


and  perhaps,  in  addition  28  Aug.  St.  Augustine  of  Hippo. 

Proper  masses  for  the  foregoing  occur  in  MSS.  of  the  eighth 
century  or  earlier. 

To  this  class  may  be  added  St.  Genovefa  (3  Jan.),  St.  Matthias 
(24  Feb.),  St.  Benedict  at  21  March,  and  All  Saints  (1  Nov.), 
proper  masses  for  which  feasts  have  not  occurred  in  MSS.  earlier 
than  the  first  half  of  the  ninth  century,  although  doubtless  these 
formulae  themselves  are  of  an  earlier  date. 

(3)  A  third  and  very  small  class  comprises  feasts  which 
became  generally  current  in  missals  only  in  the  course  of  the 

*7 


tenth    and     eleventh    centuries,    represented    by    three    entries: 

19  May  St.  Potentiana;  21  July  St.  Praxedes;  23  July  Saints 
Vincent  and  Apollinaris.  I  do  not  know  where  to  find  the  text 
of  proper  masses  for  these  saints  at  so  early  a  date  as  the  tenth 
century.  With  this  class  must  be  counted  9  March  The  Forty 
Martyrs;  and  14  May  SS.  Victor,  Quartus  and  404  martyrs. 
As  to  these  (probably  mere  survivals  from  an  earlier  age)  it  is 
impossible  to  say  anything  without  entering  into  full  details  as  to 
the  antiquities  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  church  calendar  for  which  this 
is  not  the  place. 

(4)  There  remain  the  local,  i.e.  English,  feasts  noted  with 
the  symbol  '  F  '  or  '  S '.     They  are  seven  in  number: 

20  Mar.  St.  Cuthbert  bp.  24  Aug.  St.  Patrick  the  elder 

1 1  Apr.  St.  Guthlac,  anchorite  31  „  In  Glaston  St.  Aidanbp. 
24  „  St.  Mellitus  abp.  25  Sept.  In  Glaston  St.  Ceol- 
26  May  St.  Augustine  abp.  frid  abb. 

Of  these  the  feasts  of  SS.  Cuthbert,  Guthlac  and  Augustine  are 
noted  with  '  F  ',  the  others  with  c  S '.  From  the  entries  dealt 
with  under  (1)  and  (2)  above  it  appears  that  '  F  '  represents  feasts 
of  a  higher  grade,  {  S  '  of  a  lower.  Moreover  as  we  can  from  the 
analogy  of  contemporary  missals  be  practically  certain  that  each 
one  of  the  feasts  belonging  to  these  classes  (1)  and  (2)  had  proper 
mass-prayers  in  the  Glastonbury  missal  for  which  G  was  written, 
it  is  reasonably  to  be  conjectured  that  the  English  saints  belonging 
to  at  least  this  fourth  class  were  also  represented  in  that  missal 
by  proper  masses. 

The  entries  noticed  above  under  (1)  (2)  (3)  (4)  comprise  the 
whole  of  those  marked  in  G  with  the  distinguishing  letters 
'F'and'S'. 

(5)  The  following  further  feasts  of  British,  Irish,  or  English 
saints  occur  in  the  calendar  G  for  which  it  is  to  be  presumed  no 
proper  mass  was  given  in  its  mass-book,  the  mass  said  being  of 
the  'common'  of  martyrs,  confessors,  virgins: 

12  Jan.    Benet  (Biscop)  abb.  2  Mar.  Chad  bp. 
29    „       Gildas  the  Wise             17    „      Patrick  bp. 

1  Feb.   Bridget  virg.  5  June  Boniface  bp.  and  m. 

18 


22  June  Alban  m.  10  Oct.    Paulinus    bp.    of    Ro- 

chester 

23  „       Etheldreda  virg.  1 1     „       Ethelburga     virg.     (of 

Barking) 
19  Sept.  Theodore  abp.  12     „      Wilfrid  bp. 

(6)  The  remainder  of  the  very  numerous  entries  to  which 
*F'  or  *S'  is  not  prefixed  in  the  calendar  G  may  be  most 
conveniently  designated  as  'martyrological '  entries.  These  items 
of  our  ancient  calendars  seem  to  be  commonly  neglected  or 
ignored;  yet  in  fact  they  are  the  most  important  of  all  for 
ascertaining  the  real  filiation  or  relationship  of  documents  of  this 
class.  Thus,  when  two  calendars  present  in  common  such  a  series 
of  'martyrological '  entries  as  G  and  B  do  in,  for  instance,  the 
months  of  April  and  December,  the  closeness  of  their  relationship 
is  indubitable;  as  thus: 

8  Apr.  Successus  and  Solutor  5  Dec.  Delfinus  &  Trofimus 

16    „  Felix  and  Lucian  14    „       Spiridion 

19    „  Gaius  and  Rufus  1 6    „      Victor  and  Victoria 

3  Dec.  Claudius  and  Felix  23     „       Sixtus  and  Apollinaris 

Any  one  of  these  entries,  or  a  combination  of  two  or  three,  might 
perhaps  be  found  in  other  calendars;  it  is  the  large  number  of 
such  'martyrological '  entries  common  to  both  G  and  B  that  is  so 
significant  and  constitutes  such  strong  evidence  of  their  common 
origin.  This  will  appear  in  a  clear  light  by  a  comparison  with 
some  other  calendar  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  period.  We  may  take 
as  an  example  the  two  Winchester  calendars  of  the  first  half,  or 
middle,  of  the  eleventh  century  printed  in  Hampson's  Medii 
Mvi  Kalendarium  I  422  seqq.,  435  seqq.  Of  the  ' martyrological ' 
entries  of  April  and  December  given  above  from  G  and  B,  not 
one  occurs  in  the  two  Winchester  calendars. 

In  order  further  to  illustrate  the  agreement  and  differences 
among  themselves  of  these  four  calendars  (G,  B,  Cotton  MSS. 
Vitellius  E  xvi  1 1  of  Winchester  Cathedral  and  Titus  D  xxvn  of 
the  New  Minster  of  Winchester)  it  will  suffice  in  this  place  to 
give  a  table  from  the  month  of  January  as  a  specimen: 

19 


> 

to 

X 

3 

•-4-    , 

j= 

CO 

D 

4_>        C— 

h 

o^ 

to 


4->  >C 


C 


a  ° 

H  to 


c 
a 

3 


C 

PQ 


DQ 


w 


o 


to 


o 


•g  o 

~    3 


rt 


O     H  ^ 


~     JH 


c 

rt 
>-* 

PQ 


-a 

c 


T3    <u  ^ 

lc    »-  r3 
rt  -d  JG 


n         co 


rt 

PQ 


<A 

o 

T3 

CU 

02 

00 

u 

CO 

d 

K 

4-1 

PQ 

c 

CO                         K\ 

CO 

u 

o 

> 

O 

3 

3 

4-> 

^ 

^ 

3    UTj 

2 

o 

T3 

c 

£ 

C 

^ 

Cj 

_o   s  rr3 

'+3 

CO 

<U 

o 

<u 

ji 

^rt 

rt  -C  -C 

rt 

'  55 

o 

ta 

PQ 

3 

3 

PQHU 

PQ 

O 

CQ 

> 

CO 

Cu 

o 

4-1 
J- 

t3 
d 

CO 

« 

rt 

3 

CO 

rt 

'-B 

Z 

rt 

PQ 

£ 

d 

JH 

o 
h 

co 

< 

a 

u 
O 

73. 

'co 

c 

4 

> 

O 

c 

o 

d 

4-1 

u 

o 

4-1 

V 

c 
u 

PQ 

J* 

3 

„           Babilla: 
Three 
Child* 

5 

3 

cJ 

fO 

Os 

cJ 

*-o 

ON 

^i- 

O 

►" 

►* 

*H 

c< 

CO 

20 


PLATE    IV 


v"  «V" 


bo,, .-..'!■  ri 

.,<.-((.  ^....If-.f'fiT*'    ^ 

•Ji,**i.'v*lJd       -  '     -  ■>  —  -■     ■       —  «-  ^ 

E^Ldci^eu  :    ^crr,fcU„5. 

„        t  *  vi=  W  •sr-'nuerfo  #  F  -"U  -T1'  0 


v,     ."■  ft  «.  v      kl  6  Ocroiuf  I'm  .mncaf 

H     &cj>  t*»XnuJifr««i?n.ic- 
fti 

Ihui.-viPihviwvii 

■ 
<»  J-  iu    *.     $cjxfttxikupzf-uir*f  / 

^JM  ^  *    Vttl  ID 

,  <■  v„  .»    U:   v. 

»fv      it 

a  >"  tut  u.  S.5c5cfSoLt/fcc*raiTt*cf«e'm<Bwfnnfr 

8  ti    Ml     »B 

«  A.  ii      Ift      5c«t  ouULap-atT^ 

f  > -«v    WL    5--:  'roliMpi-ciBvS'. 


!  ;::K 


fc.    *fv     H    \ 


•ici.-  c-pAH4.tr  *  friicititaf 

»vi        *  -  v.n  <;•    *-<!%.  >irn 

v  I  vii  >     f\i|ii*jfc£lM*it.xl.in-I.V 

t  v.       -      f  0 

viii  L  v 

,.  *  nil     -  t»B»p»  »WTI  CUKOHi  ]-Af  t 

.  V  ,.. 

f  - 

„„i     (  f  «<l  Scar  ««]B«e  airy 

v„  *-     -v. 

,v  t  A  •»""  '  '  ,  7 

»:»,..Hr5(n»<liMumfMwlis  , 

A         ■»,,     |  1  =  rjcitUMMK-TIAStMTIi  'VC  "    " 

i)  -  v,   k:    S(.-  .  ' 

»?  ,<     Id  ON      .  IUH        - 

1%         r    .  vm  ki  FA-■^urtaaao^c'm'l^,*u''u,^*,n,'' 
f  A  „„  U  '        Or.,uif  AJfcrn 

wii       C  1  vi    H     RefuTTtcaoJii,  fn'na.  • 

vi  H  C     v       U 

1  »  mi   kl     0r<>Wao1ciii^iji)«*ip.»p«- 
jra      k-r    •■■  &e»Jemmmt 

.,.      '   LA,. 
IN  «v  !.,JfT  Um   vn    DlES.vfRO-x.il. 


»  1 

f*C ......  ..        . 

Ap«i'*  1 

•    -f  >.V»f  J  «tS    H^t  •  IvMJsM.  ->X1% 

*'  1 

ApB... 

Jll              W  k    H 

1    n     1  ci  uuolenct  ccnftf 

mil 

,      m      ■iiiuriieoclofiic-uir^                  *" 

m      r  ■  1 

n     SfijnArofu 

♦«*«rU)ULS.)i.iii5»l«tvHlt,.<.  ',„       A 


>c'ai:(uccc(7I  Alfotiiirrtr 


fi  <-    ill      '.r»F.6cifVt*l«W.W*ct»0B.ITJLf 

6  ,k  ^vi    W      Scifidictr-tuciani 

„..       ,      pmU. 

k-  «i,i  fcl     Sciyw-.&rufi 
3tu        Lj    y.11    kl     Scbv.ntArceili.pccn- 

1  A 1    yi  let 

X  J  ti  kl     Scitcoiiifcpi 

1%  o  ...   1^  flftociqyoTTj^i  niAT" 

f  »  viii  ;'.9-Sc\mv(ircTAfcyiJli,j)»v 

>v,i      ^.  C   vii  V.  Set  Tium  aiuan^'  '  cr»m,  1--1V 

v.         H.P  vi  kl  .     * 

5  f   V  'ir'i      Sciv^n'J'ii 

»ltil       r  f  1111  icl     Sc'iur.  lUfn^ir 

...     a.«  in  U  e^-mopo'^-^'. 

»A.I       U     / 


iW&i.J 


FIRST   PAGE   OF   THE   CALENDAR 


Thus  the  month  of  January  shows  that  there  are  present  two 
distinct  calendar  traditions;  and  also,  by  the  entries  of  the  24th 
and  30th,  how  each  is  beginning  to  affect  the  other.  If  the 
whole  year  be  gone  through  in  the  same  way  it  will  be  seen  how 
the  Glastonbury  and  Bosworth  Psalter  calendars  agree  together 
as  against  those  of  Winchester. 

Over  and  above  the  substantial  identity  of  the  two  first 
named,  B  presents  a  particular  item  of  evidence  that  it  and  G 
both  derive  from  Glastonbury.  Glastonbury  itself  is  mentioned 
in  two  entries  in  both  G  and  B,  but  only  one  such  entry  is 
common  to  the  two  MSS.,  viz:  at  25  September:  'In  Glaston 
St.  Ceolfrid  abbat '.  G  has  also  at  31  August:  { In  Glaston 
St.  Aidan  bishop  '  where  B  has  only  c  St.  Aidan  bishop  ' ;  G  has 
at  24  August  '  St.  Patrick  the  elder '  only  where  B  reads 
1  St.  Patrick  the  elder  in  Glaston '.  It  is  certain  then  from 
all  these  considerations  that  the  compiler  of  B  had  before  him 
a  Glastonbury  calendar  but  not  that  which  is  now  found  in 
the  Leofric  Missal;  and  both  G  and  B  appear  as  independent 
derivatives  from  a  common  original. 

2.  THE  CALENDAR  OF  THE  BOSWORTH  PSALTER 

Now  that  the  relationship  existing  between  G  and  B  as  against 
other  calendars  of  the  later  Anglo-Saxon  period  has  been  pointed 
out  and  exemplified,  and  the  nature  of  G  has  been  explained,  we 
are  in  a  position  to  examine  the  variations  of  B  from  G. 

We  may  first  consider  the  differences  in  the  grading  of  feasts. 

In  a  certain  number  of  cases  where  the  significant  '  F '  or 
'  S'  is  found  in  G,  it  is  not  given  in  B.     These  cases  are: 

3  Jan.    Genovefa        -  class  (2)  in  §  1  above 

14    „       Felix  in  Pincis  - 

9  Mar.  Passion  of  40  martyrs 
25  Apr.  Letania  maior  (c  F  ') 
28     „       Vitalis  m. 

1  May  Philip  and  James  ('  F  ') 

13  „       Ded.  of  the  Church  of  St.  Mary 

(the  Pantheon)        - 

14  „      Victor,  Quartus  and  404  mm. 
25  May  Urban  - 

21 


class  (2)  in  §  1 

..  (0 

.»  (3)      ., 

..  CO 

■  (1) 

..    (0 

!  co 

»  (3)     » 

,.    (0 

28  June  Vigil  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul  class  (i)  in  §  I  above 
20  Sept.  Vigil  of  St.  Matthew  „     (2)  „ 

27  Oct.    Vigil  of  SS.  Simon  and  Jude  „     (2)  „ 

29  Nov.  Vigil  of  St.  Andrew  -  -       „     (1)  „ 

With  the  exception  of  9  March  and  14  May  these  are  all  feasts 
for  which  proper  masses  are  found  in  the  mass-books  of  the 
eighth  and  ninth  centuries.  Are  we  to  say  that  these  proper  masses 
were  omitted  in  the  missal  which  stands  behind  the  calendar  B  ? 
Or  are  these  omissions  merely  an  instance  of  that  kind  of  inexact- 
whieh  is  so  often  found  on  a  comparison  of  derivative  with 
original,  or  of  derivatives  whereof  one  is  some  steps  further 
removed  than  the  other  from  the  original?  Seeing  that  most  of 
these  days  have  a  proper  mass  in  the  later  mediaeval  missals 
generally  and  in  those  of  the  tenth  century  universally,  it  seems 
safer  to  conclude  that  the  omission  of  '  F  '  or  '  S  '  in  these  cases  is 
due  merely  to  the  inexactitude  or  carelessness  of  the  scribe  of  B. 
On  the  other  hand  a  certain  number  of  feasts  appear  in  B 
with  the  significant  letter  '  S  '  or  *  F '  where  it  is  wanting  in  G. 
These  are: 

10  Feb.   Scholastica  virg.  19  Sept.  Theodore  abp. 

1 8  May  Mark  evang.  24    „       Conception  of  St.  John 

22  June  Alban  mart.  Bapt. 

23  „       Etheldreda  virg.  31  Oct.   Vigil  of  All  Saints  (?  or 

11  July   Benedict  abb.  Quintin) 
3  Aug.  Finding  of  the  Body     13  Nov.  Brice 

of  St.  Stephen 

The  reasonable  presumption  is  that  the  insertion  of  '  S '  in 
these  cases  (or  in  the  case  of  St.  Alban  c  F  ')  indicates  (however 
the  case  may  be  as  regards  a  proper  mass)  some  heightening  of 
the  grade  of  observance  for  these  feasts  in  the  church  for  which 
B  was  written.  And  it  is  important  to  note,  for  the  history  and 
popularity  of  cults  in  the  later  Anglo-Saxon  Church  that  the 
significant  '  F  '  (used  to  indicate  such  feasts  as  the  Epiphany, 
the  four  feasts  of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  SS.  Peter  and  Paul  and  the 


22 


the  other  Apostles)  is  found  in  both  calendars  before  the  entries 
of  the  following  feasts: 

12  Mar.  St.  Gregory  26  May  St.  Augustine 

20  „       St.  Cuthbert  11  Nov.  St.  Martin 

21  „       St.  Benedict  23     „       St.  Clement 
11  Apr.   St.  Guthlac 

No  comment  is  necessary  as  regards  St.  Gregory  and  St. 
Augustine.  The  high  grade  assigned  to  the  feast  of  St.  Benedict 
in  March,  when  taken  in  connection  with  the  fact  that  the  feast 
of  the  Translation  in  July  was  not  specially  marked  in  G  at  all 
and  stood  in  the  rank  of  a  mere  fmartyrological '  entry,  whilst 
in  B  it  is  raised  only  to  the  grade  of  '  S ',  is  of  great  significance 
in  its  bearing  on  the  obscure  questions  concerning  the  early  cult 
of  St.  Benedict  at  Fleury  and  Monte  Cassino  and  is  one  of  the 
very  numerous  items  of  evidence  which  go  to  shew  that  the  early 
tradition  of  England  consistently  and  exclusively  connected  the 
practical  cult  of  St.  Benedict  with  his  death  in  March  and  burial 
at  Monte  Cassino,  and  not  (as  in  Frankish  lands)  with  the 
feast  of  July  commemorating  the  translation  of  his  relics  to 
Fleury  about  the  middle  of  the  seventh  century.  The 
high  grade  assigned  to  the  feasts  of  St.  Cuthbert  and  St. 
Guthlac  is  interesting  but  is  due  not  so  much  to  local  cult  as  to 
considerations  concerning  their  mode  of  life,  and  in  the  tenth 
century  may  be  rather  viewed  as  a  survival  having  its  roots  in 
the  quite  early  history  of  English  hagiological  tradition. 

But  special  attention  must  be  called  to  the  inclusion  of  Saint 
Clement  in  these  feasts  of  the  higher  grade.  In  the  calendar  of 
the  psalter  MS.  150  of  the  Salisbury  Cathedral  Library  which 
cannot  be  much  later  than  the  middle  of  the  tenth  century,  and 
in  that  of  the  so-called  c  Portiforium  S.  Oswaldi '  C.  C.  C.  C. 
MS.  391  (a  Worcester  calendar  commonly  assigned  to  the  year 
1064)  St.  Clement's  day  is  marked  with  a  cross  like  the  feasts  of 
our  Lord,  the  Blessed  Virgin  and  the  others  of  the  highest 
consideration  and  observance.  This  distinction  lasted  for  some 
time  after  the  Conquest;  in  the  calendars  of  Arundel  MSS.  60 
and  155  (to  be  considered  later)  the  name  of  St.  Clement  is 
distinguished  by  capital  letters,  and  in  the  first  of  these  two  also 

23 


by  the  cross  distinguishing  the  feasts  of  highest  grade.  An 
explanation  of  the  prominence  given  to  St.  Clement's  day  is 
afforded  by  the  so-called  Anglo-Saxon  Poetical  Menology  of  the 
tenth  century.  This  piece  professes  to  give  the  list  of  feasts 
the  general  observance  of  which  was  prescribed  by  royal  authority, 
and  among  the  very  small  number  other  than  those  of  our  Lord, 
the  Blessed  Virgin,  and  the  Apostles,  is  the  feast  of  St.  Clement 
(Hickes,  Thesaurus  I.  207).  Notwithstanding  the  opinion  of 
lingard  as  to  this  document,  the  documentary  evidence  afforded 
by  both  calendars  and  collections  of  Anglo-Saxon  homilies  for 
the  Church  Year  substantially  bears  out,  so  far  as  the  feast  of 
St.  Clement  is  concerned,  the  statement  of  the  author  of  the 
Poetical  Menology.1 

We  may  now  examine  the  changes,  by  addition  or  omission 
of  names  of  saints,  which  the  compiler  of  the  calendar  B,  with 
a  Glastonbury  calendar  like  G  before  him,  made  in  that  model 
to  adapt  it  to  the  requirements  of  the  church  for  which  the  new 
calendar  was  to  serve. 

First  of  all,  the  names  of  one  hundred  and  forty-six  saints 
have  been  omitted.     Of  these  seven  are  the  names  of  Frankish 


saints: 


30  Jan.    Aldegundis 
6  Feb.   Amandus 
Radegund 


1  1 


9  Sept.  Audomarus 
Two  are  'local'  or  insular: 
17  Mar.  St.  Patrick1 


17  Sept.  Lambert 
1  Oct.    Germanus 
3     „      Leodegar 


1 1  Oct.    Saint     Ethelburga    (of 
Barking) 


1  Lingard' J  view  (Anriquiries  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Church,  Ed.  1 845,  I,  31411.  2)  that  the 
Menology  'is  plainly  from  its  contents  the  calendar  of  some  monastery  of  Benedictine  monks' 
it  to  be  explained  in  some  measure  by  defective  knowledge,  in  some  measure  by  certain  well- 
understood  and  rooted  prejudices  of  a  kind  commonly  proper  to  trouble  historical  judgement. 
He  had  allowed  his  interests  to  become  engaged  as  a  partizan  in  the  standing  cause  of  'secular 
Wtrtm  regular',  and  he  suffers  accordingly. 

'  As  first  written  B  seems  to  have  contained  the  name  of  St.  Patrick.  There  is  an  erasure 
at  1-  Mjrch,  the  two  letters  '  ep '  of  'episcopus'  can  still  be  traced;  the  erasure  may  have  been 
made  by  the  copyist  of  the  calendar  [I  leave  this  note;  for  correction  of  it  see  £  9]. 

*4 


The  remaining  one  hundred  and  thirty-seven  names  omitted1 
are  all  of  the  class  designated  above,  §  I  (6),  as  *  martyrological ' 
entries;  and  their  omission  results  in  a  distinct  modernizing  of 
B  as  compared  with  G. 

For  the  investigation  of  the  origin  of  B  its  additions  to  G 
must  be  reviewed  in  detail.     They  fall  into  five  groups. 

(a)  Six  such  additions  are  *  martyrological ' :  8  Jan.  Lucian 
and  Julian;  20  Feb.  Didimus  and  Gaius;  20  Apr.  Marcellus, 
Peter;  16  May,  Eugenia;  18  Nov.  Barralus;  14  Dec.  Spiridion. 
To  these  may  be  added  25  and  27  July,  St.  Christopher  and  the 
Seven  Sleepers,  perhaps  borrowed  from  Winchester. 

(J?)  Five  feasts  of  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary  omitted  in  G 
(see  §  1  (1))  are  restored:  28  June  St.  Leo,  1  Aug.  St.  Peter's 
Chains,  29  Aug.  St.  Sabina,  29  Nov.  St.  Saturninus,  25  Dec. 
St.  Anastasia.  Three  feasts  of  Apostles  of  a  different  origin  are 
inserted:  18  Jan.  St.  Peter's  Chair,  11  June  St.  Barnabas,  3  July 
Translation  of  St.  Thomas. 

(c)  Certain  modern  saints  are  added  of  the  region  of  Ponthieu: 
16  Jan.  St.  Fursey,  the  Irish  founder  of  the  monastery  of 
Peronne;  2  Apr.  S.  Valericus;  Audomarus  at  8  June;  26  June 
Salvius  (Valenciennes) ;  1 6  July  Bertin ;  20  July  Wulfmar ;  and  one 
Norman  saint,  22  July,  Wandregisil  the  founder  of  Fontenelle.* 

(d)  St.  Ethelburga  of  Barking,  except  Etheldreda  the  only 
English  woman  saint  in  G,  is  omitted  in  B.     B  adds  ten : 

3  Feb.   St.  Werburgh  of  Chester. 
10    „       St.  Merwinna  of  Romsey. 
13     „       St.  Ermenilda  of  Ely. 
23     „      St.  Milburga  of  Wenlock. 

1  Of  these,  19  Jan.  SS.  Mary  and  Martha,  16  Sept.  St.  Euphemia,  11  Dec.  St.  Damasus 
with  2  Oct.  St.  Leodegar,  have  proper  masses  in  mass-books  earlier  than  the  ninth  century;  but 
as  the  letter  *  S '  is  not  prefixed  to  theie  entries  in  G  it  is  improbable  that  the  mass-book  for 
which  G  was  written  contained  such  proper  masses  and  the  entries  of  these  five  names  these 
would  thus  be  merely  'martyrological'. 

'  It  may  be  noticed  in  passing  that  this  is  a  different  series  from  the  set  of  feasts  of  saints 
of  the  same  region  in  the  calendar  of  MS.  Digby  63,  assigned  to  the  later  part  of  the  ninth 
century  [Missal  of  Robert  of  Jumiegcs,  Introduction,  pp.  xxxi-xxxii).  The  body  of  St.  Wandregisil 
was  the  chief  item  in  the  famous  translation  of  relics  by  Arnulf  Count  of  Flanders  in  944  to 
the  monastery  of  Mont  Blandin  near  Ghent  where  St.  Dunstan  spent  his  time  of  exile  956-957. 

25 


1 8  May  St.  Elgiva  of  Shaftesbury. 
15  June  St.  Edburga  of  Winchester. 

6  July    St.  Sexburga  of  Ely. 

7  „      St.  Ethelburga  of  Faremoutier. 

8  „      St.  Withburga  of  Dereham  in  Norfolk. 

translated  to  Ely  in  974. 
13     „       St.  Mildred  of  Kent. 

Of  these  holy  women  only  Ermenilda  and  Sexburga  of  Ely, 
Elgiva  of  Shaftesbury,  and  Edburga  of  Winchester  appear  in  the 
Winchester  calendars.  Moreover  at  30  Jan.  Baltildis  queen 
of  France,  abbess  of  Chelles,  and  a  native  of  England  is  in  B 
substituted  for  Aldegundis  who  stands  at  this  date  in  G.  From 
the  list  itself  just  given  it  clearly  appears  that  the  inclusion  of  these 
women  saints  in  B  is  not  determined  by  mere  local  considerations. 
(*)  The  following  English  saints  complete  the  additions  made 
by  the  compiler  of  B  to  the  calendar  G  which  he  had  for 
his   model: 

9  Jan.    Adrian,  abbat  of  St.  Augustine's,  Canterbury. 

2  Feb.   Laurence,  archbishop  of  Canterbury. 
19  May  Dunstan,  archbishop  of  Canterbury. 
25     „       Aldhelm,  bishop  of  Sherborne. 
17  June  Botulf,  abbat  in  South  Lincolnshire. 

2  July    Swithun,  bishop  of  Winchester, 

8     „       Grimbald,  abbat  at  Winchester. 
1  5     „       Deusdedit,  archbishop  of  Canterbury. 

16  „       Translation  of  St.  Swithun 

17  „       Kenelm,  of  Mercia. 

5  Aug.  Oswald,  king  and  martyr  of  Northumbria. 
30  Sept.  Honorius,  archbishop  of  Canterbury. 
1 7  Oct.    Nothelm,  archbishop  of  Canterbury. 

2  Nov.  Rumwald,  of  Buckingham. 
10     „       Justus,  archbishop  of  Canterbury. 

In  this  list  Wessex,  East  England,  Mercia,  Northumbria,  and 
the  East  Midlands  are  each  represented  by  one  saint;  Winchester 
by  two;  Canterbury  by  seven. 

On  an  analysis  of  the  additions  made  by  B  to  the  model 
calendar   G   it    appears  with    unmistakable    evidence    that   B   is 

26 


a  calendar,  and  represents  a  mass-book,  of  Canterbury.1  The 
date  of  B  will  appear  from  the  following  considerations:  it 
contains  the  feast  of  St.  Dunstan  but  not  that  of  St.  Elphege. 
The  cultus  of  St.  Dunstan  began  almost  immediately  after  his 
death  in  988  and  soon  became  general;  St.  Elphege  was  martyred 
in  10 1 2  and  his  relics  were  translated  from  London  to  Canterbury 
in  1023.  The  calendar  accordingly  falls  between  988  and  1023; 
and,  it  is  to  be  observed,  may  for  anything  that  appears  quite  as 
probably  have  been  written  near  the  first  of  these  years  as  near 
the  second.  In  any  case  the  calendar  B  is  the  only  one  at  present 
known  belonging  to  Canterbury  which  certainly  dates  from 
a  period  anterior  to  the   Norman  Conquest. 

3.  THE  CHANGES  AT  CANTERBURY  UNDER  LAN- 
FRANC 

The  British  Museum  possesses  at  least  four  calendars  of  Christ 
Church  Canterbury  of  various  dates  ranging  from  about  the 
middle  of  the  thirteenth  century  to  the  fifteenth.8  The  differences 
of  these  calendars  among  themselves  are  slight  and  concern 
mostly  the  grading  of  feasts;  and  they  all  witness  to  a  single  and 
now  fixed  tradition.  But  when  compared  with  B  they  are  found 
to  present  a  singular  and  extensive  series  of  changes;  and  that, 
even  less  in  regard  to  purely  local  names  (though  the  change 
here  too  is  radical)  than  in  regard  to  those  feasts  called  above  in 
section  1,  {  mass-book '  and  c  martyrological ',  which  make  the 
groundwork  and  are  the  substantial  part  of  the  calendar.  This 
means  that  extensive  changes  have  also  been  made  in  the  mass- 
book  and  the  breviary,  of  which  books  the  calendar  is  in  the  later 
middle  ages  the  indiculus,  or,  so  to  speak,  the  formal  programme. 
In  order  to  give  an  idea  at  once  of  the  character  and  the 

1  What  has  been  said  hitherto  on  the  relation  of  calendar  and  mass-book  is  to  be  understood 
only  of  G  and  B  and  with  limitation  as  above. 

2  These  are:  Cotton  MS.  Tiberius  B  m  ff.  2-7,  which  contain*  the  feast  of  the  Translation 
of  St.  Thomas  (1220),  but  not  the  feast  of  St.  Edmund  abp.,  and  probably  therefore  is  of  about  the 
middle  of  the  thirteenth  century;  Egerton  MS.  2867  ff.  423-424  of  about  the  same  date;  Additional 
MS.  6160  ff.  2b-8a  of  about  a  century  later;  Sloane  MS.  3887  ff.  i3a-20b  of  the  early  part  of 
the  fifteenth  century.  The  first  and  third  are  the  most  important  and  authentic  of  these  document* 
for  the  history  of  the  later  calendar  of  Canterbury  Cathedral. 

27 


extent  of  these  changes  it  will  be  enough  to  take  the  month  of 
January  again  as  an  example.  The  following  entries  found  in  B 
arc  omitted  in  the  Canterbury  cathedral  calendars  of  the  thirteenth 
and  following  centuries: 

:   l.in.  Isidore.  17  Jan-  Antony  monk 

3     „  Genovefa.  18     „  St.    Peter's    Chair   (at 

5     ,,  Simeon  monk.  Rome). 

8     „  Lurian  and  Julian.  24    „  Babillas  and  the  Three 


9 

10 
12 


Fortunatus.  Children. 

hermit*  29    „      Gildas. 


Benet  abb.  30    „      Baltildis. 

The  entries  in  the  four  later  calendars  not  found  in  B  are: 

2  Jan.    Octave  of  St.  Stephen.        15  Jan.    Maurus. 

3  „       Octave  of  St.  John.  23     „       Emerentiana. 

4  „       Oct.  of  Holy  Innocents.        25     „       Prejectus. 
13     „       Hilary. 

The  same  kind  of  revision,  by  omission  and  addition,  is  found 
throughout  the  year.  When  these  changes  are  considered  as 
a  whole,  only  one  conclusion  is  possible,  viz:  that  the  post- 
Conquest  calendar  of  Canterbury  cathedral  has  not  been  built 
up  on,  and  is  not  a  mere  modification  of,  the  pre-Conquest 
calendar  B,  but  another  calendar  stands  in  its  place,  or  has  been 
substituted  for  it. 

How  did  this  come  about?  The  answer  lies  ready  at  hand  in 
the  calendar  of  the  Arundel  MS.  155,  a  psalter  of  the  eleventh 
century.  This  MS.  at  the  Dissolution  belonged  to  Christ  Church, 
Canterbury  (the  cathedral).  Numerous  different  hands  ranging 
from  the  fourteenth  century  up  to  the  twelfth  (or  even  perhaps  the 
eleventh)  have  entered  in  the  calendar  as  originally  written  by 
the  first  hand  many  additional  feasts,  thus  gradually  restoring 
one  after  another  several  of  those  ancient  ones,  and  some  of  the 
local  ones,  that  are  found  in  the  calendar  B.  Of  these  additions 
the  earliest  (with  one  exception  to  be  mentioned  later)  seems  to 
be  that  at  4  May  which  is  carefully  entered  in  red.  This  entry 
is  as  follows:  "  Dedicatio  ecclesie  Christi  Cantuarie  "  ;  and  refers 
to  the  dedication  of  the  cathedral   in   the   year   11 30  which   is 

28 


recorded  by  our  annalists  generally.  On  examination,  the  Arundel 
MS.  155  presents  in  regard  to  the  calendar  B  the  omissions  and 
additions  (except  the  feasts  in  italics)  that  have  been  pointed  out 
in  detail  just  above  for  the  month  of  January  as  presented  on  a 
comparison  of  B  with  the  later  mediaeval  calendar  of  Canterbury 
cathedral;  and  the  case  holds  good  through  the  year.  In  other 
words  it  becomes  on  full  comparison  evident  that  the  calendar 
of  Arundel  MS.  155  as  originally  written  offers  the  groundwork 
on  which  the  later  calendars  of  that  cathedral  have  been  built. 

Moreover  this  further  fact  appears:  that  the  Canterbury 
cathedral  calendar  in  the  MS.  Tiberius  B  in.  of  c.  1240-1250  is 
the  calendar  of  Arundel  MS.  155  plus  additions  made  in  that 
calendar  by  various  hands  as  explained  above.  The  calendar 
of  Tiberius  B  in.  omits  indeed  a  certain  number  of  feasts  found 
in  the  calendar  of  Arundel  MS.  155  as  originally  written,  and 
gives  a  few  entries  not  added  by  later  hands  in  that  MS.  But 
these  additions  or  omissions  are  not  such,  or  so  numerous,  as 
to  invalidate,  or  affect,  the  statement  made  above,  as  will  appear 
from  the  following  figures  and  details. 

(a)  Tiberius  B  in.  contains  fifty-nine  more  entries  of  feasts 
than  the  original  Arundel  155;  of  these  fifty-nine,  forty- 
nine  are  found  as  additions  to  this  latter  calendar  in 
various  hands. 

(b)  Of  the  ten  not  so  added  three  are  archbishops  of  Canter- 
bury: 15  July  Deusdedit;  30  Sept.  Honorius  and  16  Nov. 
Aelfric.1  Thiee  are,  2.  3,  4  Jan.  the  octaves  of  SS.  Stephen, 
John  and  Innocents.  The  other  four  are :  5  Jan.  St.  Edward 

1  This  seems  to  be  the  earliest  certain  witness  to  the  liturgical  cult  of  archbishop  Aelfric. 
In  Arundel  MS.  155  at  2  June  is  the  entry  '  Odonis  arepi '  in  faded  yellow  like  the  entry  at 
25  May  of  the  octave  of  St.  Dunstan,  the  characters  being  like  those  of  the  entry  of  the  dedica- 
tion of  1 1 30.  This  is  possibly  an  entry  of  Odo's  feast  not  an  obit,  and  so  to  be  added  under  [a). 
The  entry  of  Lanfranc's  name  in  this  and  the  later  calendars  at  28  May  (sometimes  as  '  Transitu* 
Lanfranci ')  is  doubtless  only  to  be  taken  as  a  specially  honoured  obit  and  not  as  a  'proof  of  cult'; 
the  iii  lc.  at  this  day  refers  to  Germanus  bp.  The  entries  in  Tib.  B  in.  of  Basil  (1  Jan.),  Longi- 
nus  (15  March),  Mary  of  Egypt  (2  April)  and  Nicodemus,  Gamaliel  and  Abibon  (3  Aug.)  are 
not  items  of  the  practical  calendar  but  rather  due  to  scribal  caprice.  The  same  is  to  be  said  of 
e.g.  'Theophili'  at  28  Feb.  in  Egerton  MS.  2867.  That  Urn  is  10  appears  from  a  comparison  of 
the  other  calendars  still  extant. 

29 


the  Confessor,  17  June  Botulf  abbat,  25  July  c  et  cucufatis ' 
(a  commemoration),  and  25  Dec.  Anastasia. 
(<•)  The  feasts  omitted  are  twenty-five  in   number,  and  can 
be   for   the    most    part   probably  explained   as  e.g.  cults 
fallen  out  of  fashion  etc.,   not  to  dwell  on  the  need  of 
disburdening  the  existing  calendar  to  accommodate  it  for 
the  large  number  of  additions  that  were  made  as  detailed 
above.1 
The  calendar  of  Arundel   MS.   155  being  thus  identified  as 
giving  the  original  form  from  which  the  later  Canterbury  cathe- 
dral calendar  was  developed,  the  enquiry  next  suggests  itself,  what 
is  the  character,  source,  origin  of  the  form  in  Arundel  155  ?     We 
need  not  go  far  afield  to  find  the  answer.     Simplified  by  several 
omissions,  and  a  few  additions,  Arundel  155  is  the  post-Conquest 
calendar  o(  Winchester  represented  in  a  calendar  of  a  MS.  psalter 
now  Arundel  MS.  60;   which  last  named  calendar  itself  is  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  that  in  use  before  the  Conquest  as  preserved 
to  us  in  a  MS.  of  about  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  century  now 
Cotton  MS.  Vitellius  E  xvm.  already  mentioned  above  as  printed 
by  Hampson.* 

What  is  involved  in  the  foregoing   statement   is  this:    that 

1  The  list  of  omissions  is  as  follows:  Genovefa,  Paul  the  hermit,  Antony  monk,  Mary  and 
Martha,  Ermenilda,  Donatus  hp.  (i  March),  Edward  king  and  m.,  Leo  pope  (n  April),  Guthlac 
anchorite,  Eufemia  (the  duplicate  feast  of  i  2  April),  Erkcnwald  bp.,  Athanasius  bp.,  Potentiana  v., 
Petronella  v.,  Nicomedes  m.  (i  June),  Boniface  bp.,  Medard  bp.,  Translation  of  St.  Swithun, 
Kenelm  m.,Samson  bp.,  Translation  of  SS.  Birinus  and  Cuthbert,  Lucia  and  Geminianus,  Con- 
ception of  St.  John  Baptist,  Caesarius,  Birinus  bp.,  Translation  of  Benedict  abbat  (4  Dec).  St. 
Potentiana  seems  to  have  been  entered  originally  in  Tib.  B  iii.  at  19  May,  St.  Dunstan's  day,  and 
to  have  been  erased. 

1  The  omissions  of  Ar.  155  as  compared  with  Ar.  60  are  fifty-one  in  number,  whereof  twenty- 
two  are  local  (i.e.  English)  saints.  The  additions  are  sixteen;  but  it  is  important  to  observe  that  sevea 
of  these  though  not  occurring  in  the  Winchester  calendar  of  the  later  years  of  the  eleventh  century 
(Arundel  60)  are  found  in  the  Winchester  calendar  Vitellius  E  xvm,  of  about  the  middle  of  the 
eleventh  century;  these  seven  feasts  may  thus  not  improbably  have  stood  also  in  the  calendar  of  inter- 
mediate date  from  which  (as  will  be  explained  below)  Arundel  155  derives.  The  remaining  nine  are 
real  additions  to  the  Winchester  original;  viz  :  3  Jan.  Genovefa;  25  Jan.  Prejectus;  3  Feb.  Blasiusbp.; 
10  Feb.  Austroberta;  2S  May  Germanus  bp.  (of  Paris);  26  June  (Salvius);  13  July  Mildred; 
1  Nov.  Caisarius;    23  Nov.  Felicitas. 


30 


during  the  archiepiscopate  of  Lanfranc,  that  great  and  strenuous 
prelate  abolished  the  existing  and  traditional  calendar  of  his 
church  of  Canterbury  and  substituted  for  it  by  his  authority 
that  of  the  church  of  the  capital  of  his  master's  newly  acquired 
kingdom,  Winchester.  The  story  of  the  discussion  between 
archbishop  Lanfranc  and  Anselm  then  recently  elected  abbat  of 
Bee  on  the  question  whether  St.  Elphege  was  really  a  martyr  and 
so  entitled  to  liturgical  cult  has  been  repeated  over  and  over  again 
by  our  modern  historians  and  biographers  of  Anselm.1  That 
conversation  took  place  in  the  spring,  and  apparently  the  early 
spring,  of  1079.  Here  it  will  be  in  place  to  give  the  words  by 
which  Eadmer  the  Englishman  introduces  the  story:  £What  was 
done  or  said  between  the  revered  pontiff  Lanfranc  and  the  abbat 
Anselm  in  those  days  can  be  well  understood  by  people  who 
knew  the  life  and  dispositions  of  both  of  them.  But  those  who 
were  not  personally  acquainted  with  them  may  gather  what  they 
were  from  this  (and  herein  I  express  my  own  opinion  as  well 
as  that  of  many  others)  that  no  one  in  those  days  excelled 
Lanfranc  in  authority  and  manifold  experience  of  affairs,  and  no 
one  surpassed  Anselm  in  holiness  and  godly  wisdom.  Lanfranc 
moreover  was  quasi  rudis  Anglus — had  not  got  beyond  the  mere 
rudiments  of  Englishry — nor  had  he  yet  been  able  to  accommo- 
date his  mind  to  certain  well-settled  traditions  which  he  found 
in  England.  Wherefore,  whilst  he  changed  many  of  them 
relying  on  grounds  that  were  reasonable,  some  he  changed 
by  virtue  solely  of  his  great  authority.  And  so  whilst  he  was 
busy  over  these  changes '  etc.  .  .  .  then  follows  the  story  as  to 
St.  Elphege  so  often  repeated  for  us.2     It  was  in  this  way,  that 

1  It  may  be  needless  to  say  (though  it  is  here  said  pro  majori  cautela)  that  no  question 
of  'canonization'  was  involved;  this  (after  the  method  of  the  times)  had  been  settled  long  since 
and  the  strictly  liturgical  cult  of  St.  Elphege  was  already  established,  as  the  calendars  &c.  shew, 
throughout  the  country.  The  question  which  troubled  the  mind  of  Lanfranc  was  whether 
Elphege  should  be  allowed  to  maintain  his  position  or  whether  he  should  be  turned  out  of  the 
calendar,  and  his  cult,  so  far  as  his  own  cathedral  church  of  Canterbury  was  concerned,  put  an 
end  to. 

'  '  Erat  praeterea  Lanfrancus  quasi  rudis  Anglus;  necdum  sederant  animo  ejus  quaedam 
institutiones  quas  reppererat  in  Anglia.  Quapropter  cum  plures  de  illis  magna  fretus  ratione 
turn    quasdam    mutavit    sola    auctoritatis    suae    deliberatione.     Itaque    dum    illarum    mutationi 


31 


is  by  sole  virtue  of  his  authority,  that,  against  the  wish  of  the 
English-minded  of  his  community  (if  we  may  judge  of  them  by 
Eadmcr)  he  summarily  suppressed  the  now  traditional  English 
feast  of  the  Conception  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  and  cast  it  out  of 
the  calendar  and  church  books  altogether.  Again  we  have  but 
to  cast  a  glance  at  the  list  of  feasts  in  his  monastic  statutes  for 
Canterbury  cathedral1  to  see  that  in  regard  to  the  feast  of  his 
own  'patriarch  St.  Benedict,  and  his  own  compatriot  too  in  a  sense, 
Lanfranc  simply  trampled  under  foot  the  old  English  tradition 
of  honouring  with  high  observance  the  feast  of  21  March;  this 
practice  was  derived,  it  is  certain,  if  not  from  St.  Augustine  him- 
self direct,  at  least  from  the  '  disciples  of  his  disciples'  as  Bede  calls 
them.  But  Lanfranc  does  not  even  include  it  among  his  third 
grade  feasts;  and  puts  instead  of  it  in  the  place  of  honour, 
among  the  most  *  magnificent'  feasts  of  the  year,  the  Gallican 
feast  of  St.  Benedict,  the  translation  in  July. 

The  calendar  of  the  Arundel  MS.  155  as  originally  drawn 
up  is  a  record  of  the  primitive  and  'rude'  phase  of  Lanfranc's 
liturgical  reformation  in  the  ancient  Church  of  which  he  was 
now  archbishop.  The  names  of  only  two  of  his  predecessors 
occur  in  it,  St.  Augustine  and  St.  Elphege;  and  this  agrees  with 
his  statutes  (Wilkins  I.  343).  Dunstan,  the  saint  of  ancient 
English  days  who,  if  any,  commanded  from  the  very  time  of  his 
death  profound  religious  veneration  among  his  countrymen, 
whose  liturgical  cult  was  universal  in  the  first  half  of  the  eleventh 
century,  is  conspicuous  by  his  absence.  As  originally  drawn  up 
the  calendar  of  Arundel  MS.  155  too  shewed  at  19  May  only 
the  feast  of  St.  Potentiana.  To  this  entry  has  been  added  with 
capital  letters  'et  sancti  Dunstani  episcopi;'  that  this  is  an  addition 
to  the  primitive  entry  seems  to  me  evident,  but  from  the  hand- 
writing it  must  have  been  made  at  a  very  early    date    and    is 

intenderet'  <fcc (Dc  Vita  AnuJm  I  42  cd.  Gerberon;  I  30  ed.   Rule).     If  the  Canterbury 

calendar  was  in  fact  radically  changed  in  the  later  part  of  the  eleventh  century,  and  (as  Eadmer 
clearly  implies)  in  1079  Lanfranc  was  engaged  in  considering  changes  in  that  calendar,  this 
would  have  a  very  practical  bearing  on  the  question  of  the  actual  date  of  Arundel  MS.  155. 

1  Printed  by  Wiikins  under  the  year  1072;  but  this  assignment  of  date  is  quite  arbitrary. 


3* 


practically  contemporary;  and  it  would  thus  be  the  first  sign  in 
the  MS.  of  returning  Englishry.1 

The  next  sign  is  probably  the  entry  of  the  octave  of  St. 
Dunstan  at  26  May,  seemingly  in  the  same  hand  as  the  entry  of 
the  dedication  of  1130.  For  the  twelfth,  thirteenth,  and  early 
fourteenth  centuries  additions  were  made  (as  said  above)  by  suc- 
cessive hands  and  they  are  of  a  very  miscellaneous  character;  some 
witness  to  cults  like  St.  Faith,  St.  Mary  Magdalen,  St.  Katherine, 
St.  Leonard,  etc.  which  became  widely  spread  among  the  devout 
people  in  the  twelfth  century;  some  few  are  of  English  saints, 
as  St.  Paulinus  of  Rochester  and  St.  Wilfrid  restored  to  the 
10th  and  12th  of  October.  But  the  calendar  of  the  church  of 
Canterbury  in  the  later  middle  ages  never  recovered  that  strongly 
marked  type  which  makes  the  calendar  of  the  Bosworth  Psalter 
like  the  contemporary  document,  the  tract  on  'The  Resting 
Places  of  the  Saints/  a  compendium  as  it  were  of  the  saintly 
memories  of  a  now  united  England.2  The  names  of  most  of 
the  ancient  archbishops  never  reappeared.  In  the  course  seem- 
ingly of  the  twelfth  century,  to  SS.  Augustine,  Dunstan,  and 
Elphege  were  added  at  19  Sept.  Theodore,  at  21  Oct.  the 
Ordination  of  St.  Dunstan,  at  16  Nov.  the  Ordination  of  Saint 
Elphege ;    the   feast   of  the   Ordination   of  St.   Gregory  is    also 

1  In  contrast  to  Lanfranc  in  his  Statutes  standi  St.  Anselm,  in  whose  private  prayers  is  one(N°73) 
to  St.  Dunstan, — the  only  one  addressed  to  an  English  saint  (Migne  P.L.  158.  1 007-1009;  Stubbs, 
Memorials  of  St. Dunstan  pp.  450-453).  It  seems  not  improbable  that  th.it  prayer  is  to  be  brought  into 
connection  with  the  restoration  of  St.  Dunstan  to  the  Canterbury  cathedral  calendar.  The  occur- 
rence of  the  word  'cathedra'  (for  Adelard's  '  solium',  Osbern's  'thronus')  is  a  narrow  basis  on 
which  to  assume  (as  bishop  Stubbs  has  done)  Anselm's  acquaintance  with  the  Life  of  St.  Dunstan 
by  Eadmer  rather  than  any  other  {Memorials  p.  453  n.  1).  On  a  comparison  of  the  historical  recital 
in  the  prayer  with  the  relative  accounts  in  Adelard  (pp.  64-65),  Osbern  (pp.  120-121)  and  Eadmer 
(pp.  217-218)  it  seems  clearly  derived  from  one  or  other  of  the  two  first  ;  some  words  point 
rather  to  the  one,  some  rather  to  the  other.  The  passage  '  Quod  a  Deo  gratiae  ....  quocunque 
vadit '  (col.  1009  C  p.  453)  seems  however  distinctly  to  settle  the  case  in  favour  of  Adelard  (cf. 
pp.  67-68);  besides,  it  would  be  not  unnatural  that  the  writer  of  the  prayer  should  follow  Adelard 
whose  '  Life '  of  St.  Dunstan  is  no  more  than  the  twelve  lessons  which  had  been  traditionally 
read  at  matin3  in  Canterbury  cathedral  on  St.  Dunstan's  feast.  It  is  a  pity,  be  it  said  in 
passing,  that  bishop  Stubbs  should  have  been  led  to  assign  the  mass  of  St.  Dunstan  printed  by 
him  pp.  442-443  (as  to  the  real  age  of  which  we  know  nothing)  to  'A.  D.  cir.  1070'. 

*  Cf.  the  remarks  of  F  .  Liebermann,  Die  Heiliger.  Englands  (Hannover,  Hahn,  1889)  p.  xii. 

33 


revived,  but  now  at  3  Sept.  instead  of  at  the  end  of  March.1 
The  calendar  of  Tiberius  Bui.  adds  at  21  April  St.  Anselm, 
at  2  June  St.  Odo  (f959)  a»d  at  16  Nov.  a  commemoration  of 
'StJElfncabp.  and  confessor' (f  1005);  and  the  feast  of  St.  Adrian 
abbat  of  St.  Augustine's  is  revived  at  9  Jan.  The  foregoing 
(except  TElfric)  maintained  their  liturgical  ground  in  the  services 
of  the  cathedral  to  the  end.  In  one  calendar  (Tiberius  B  in.) 
the  name  of  the  archbishop  Deusdedit  (f  664)  is  revived  at  15 
July,  in  another  (SloaneMS.  3887)  archbishop  Bregwin  (f  765) 
is  entered  at  26  August,  in  a  third  (Egerton  MS.  2867)  Ethelgar 
(t  989)  at  12  February;  but  these  three  never  obtained  a  recognized 
place  in  the  official  calendar,  directive  of  divine  service,  of  the 
church  of  Canterbury  in  the  later  middle  ages. 

4.  CHRIST  CHURCH  OR  ST.  AUGUSTINE'S  ? 

It  may,  however,  be  said:  As  the  Bosworth  calendar  is  of 
Canterbury  and  differs  so  radically  from  the  late  mediaeval 
calendars  of  Canterbury  cathedral,  may  it  not,  after  all,  be 
a  calendar  of  St.  Augustine's? 

The  ancient  missal  of  that  abbey,  C.  C.  C.  C.  MS.  2  70  of  the  close 
of  the  eleventh  century  or  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth,  contains 
like  B  masses  for  early  archbishops  of  Canterbury;  for  all  those 
in  B  indeed,  except  for  St.  Nothelm.  The  question  then  is  one 
that  calls  for  examination,  and  for  an  answer  here. 

One  calendar  at  least  that  is  certainly  of  St.  Augustine's  still 
exists;  it  is  contained  in  the  MS.  E  19  (ff.  32* — 37b)  of  the 
Canterbury  cathedral  Library  and  was  written  some  time  between 

1  The  ordination  of  St.  Gregory  is  at  30  March  in  G.,  the  calendar  of  the  Missal  of 
Robert  of  Jumieges,  and  the  two  calendars  assigned  to  Worcester  C.  C.  C.  C.  MS.  391,  and  MS. 
Bodl.  Junius  99;  at  29  March  in  B,  and  the  calendars  of  Salisbury  cathedral  MS.  150,  the  Red 
Book  of  Derby  C  C.  C  C.  MS.  4.22,  Digby  MS.  63  (which,  by  the  way,  seems  certainly  not  a 
Winchester  calendar),  and  the  post-Conquest  calendar  of  Winchester  Arundel  60.  The  feast  is 
not  in  the  pre-Conquest  Winchester  calendars  Vitellius  E  xvm  and  Titus  D  xxvn,  the  very 
curious  calendar  in  Cotton  MS.  Nero  A  n  seemingly  of  the  early  eleventh  century,  nor 
in  the  calendars  of  MS.  Bodl.  Douce  296,  Cotton  MS.  Vitellius  A  xvm,  and  Arundel  MS.  155. 
G.  B.  de  Rossi  in  the  Prolegomena  to  the  Hieronymian  Martyrology  pp.  xxxii-xxxiii  has 
ingeniously  argued  that  the  ordination  in  question  is  that  of  Gregory  IV  in  828.  But  this  will 
not  hold  j  for  it  occurs  29  Mar.  in  a  hand  of  the  first  half  of  the  eighth  century  in  St.  Willibrord'i 
calendar  Paris  B.  N.  MS.  Lat.  10837  and  doubtless  is  there  intended  for  St.  Gregory  the  Great. 

34 


1252  and  1273.1  On  examination,  however,  it  is  found  that  the 
groundwork  of  this  calendar  also  is  the  calendar  of  Winchester; 
and  (the  entries  of  the  names  of  the  early  archbishops  excepted) 
it  as  little  resembles  B  as  does  the  calendar  in  Tib.  B  111.  already 
examined.  In  other  words,  granting  that  B  is  a  calendar  of 
Canterbury,  the  same  sort  of  substitution  took  place  after  the 
Conquest  both  at  the  cathedral  and  St.  Augustine's.  The  presence 
in  the  ancient  missal  just  cited  of  six  of  the  seven  early  archbishops 
entered  in  B  is  easily  and  naturally  explained,  not  merely  by  the 
actual  existence  of  their  relics  at  St.  Augustine's,  but  by  the 
solemn  translation  of  these  six  at  St.  Augustine's  in  the  year 
109 1.2  And  the  absence  of  Nothelm's  feast  as  found  in  B  fixes 
the  connection  of  the  masses  in  the  missal  with  that  translation 
and  dissociates  it  from  B. 

But  there  are  two  particularities  of  cultus,  one  concerning 
St.  Augustine's  and  the  other  the  cathedral,  which,  after  all  that 
has  been  said  hitherto,  seem  definitely  to  shew  beyond  dispute 
that  B  is  not  a  calendar  of  the  former  but  of  the  latter;  or, 
emphatically,  a  calendar  of  the  Church  of  Canterbury.  A  charac- 
teristic, and  peculiar,  feast  of  St.  Augustine's  is  that  of  Saint 
Lethardus,  Queen  Bertha's  Frankish  chaplain,  whose  liturgical 
cult,  so  far  as  is  yet  known  to  me,  was  confined  to  that  sole 
monastery.  This  feast  is  found  not  only  as  a  feast  of  some 
distinction  (ranking  with  the  Conversion  of  St.  Paul,  St.  Cuthbert 
etc.)  in  the  calendar  of  1 252-1 273  but  in  the  missal  C.  C.  C.  C. 
MS.  270.  it  also  has  a  proper  mass  (ed.  Rule,  1896,  p.  87)- 
Neither  feast  nor  mass,  it  may  be  safely  assumed,  was  of  Norman 
introduction;  and  the  cult  was  traditional  in  the  house.  The 
name  of  St.  Lethardus  does  not  occur  in  B. 

On  the  other  hand  B  has  on  26  June,  as  an  addition  to  the 
old  '  sacramentary '  feast  (see  §  1  (1))  of  SS.  John  and  Paul,  the 

1  This  appears  from  the  fact  that  the  obit  of  abbat  Robert  (f  1252)  is  entered  in  the 
original,  that  of  abbat  Roger  II  (f  Dec.  1273)  'n  a  later  hand.  These  are  the  two  last  obits 
of  abbats  in  the  calendar. 

2  This  thirteenth  century  calendar  contains  besides  the  names  of  these  six  at  their  proper 
days,  the  names  of  archbishops  Tathwin  (f  734)  at  31  July  (as  a  feast  of  three  lessons)  and 
Jambert  (f  790)  at  12  Aug.  as  a  feast  of  some  distinction;  as  to  Jambert's  burial  at  St.  Augustine's 
see  in  Twysden,  Decern  Scr.  1295,  1642.  These  are  doubtless  late  introductions  (of  the  twelfth  or 
thirteenth  century)  like  Odo  and  /Elfric  at  the  cathedral. 

35 


following:  '  et  sancti  Salvi  martyris.'  This  is  a  Canterbury- 
addition  and  not  found  in  G.  This  feast  maintains  its  place  in 
all  the  successive  calendars  of  Canterbury  cathedral  from  Arundel 
155  in  the  eleventh  century  to  the  end,  fixed  at  this  date  and 
with  regular  liturgical  cult  (twelve  lessons  in  Tib.  B.  in;  eight 
lessons  in  Egerton  2867,  Add.  MS.  6160,  Sloane  3887).  The 
saint  in  question  is  St.  Salvius  of  Valenciennes,1  said  to  have 
been  martyred  towards  the  close  of  the  eighth  century.  In  the 
eleventh  century  or  even  earlier  he  was  commonly  and  erroneously 
believed  to  be  a  bishop  of  Angouleme;  but  no  such  bishop  has 
occupied  that  see.  The  Lambeth  MS.  159,  a  very  curious 
collection  of  pieces  relating  to  local  liturgy  and  hagiology  brought 
together  by  a  monk  of  Christ  Church  Canterbury  not  long  before 
the  Dissolution,  contains  at  fol.  1 1  ib  a  so-called  '  Passio  '  of  l  Saint 
Salvius  of  Angouleme',  described  in  the  margin  with  this  title: 
*  How  the  bones  of  St.  Salvius,  bishop,  were  brought  to  Canter- 
burv  ',  and  detailing  how  a  gift  of  relics  of  '  St.  Salvius  bishop 
of  Angouleme '  was  made  to  Canterbury  cathedral  by  William 
the  Conqueror  in  1085  and  the  thirteenth  year  of  archbishop 
Lanfranc.  For  anything  this  narrative  says  we  might  have  been 
led  to  conclude,  or  imagine,  that  this  was  the  first  introduction 
of  the  cult  of  St.  Salvius  into  Canterbury.  The  calendar  B  shews 
that  this  is  not  the  case.  Fortunately  too  B  does  not  stand  alone. 
Harl.  MS.  2892  is  a  Benedictional  of  Christ  Church  Canterbury 
of  the  first  half,  or  middle,  of  the  eleventh  century.  This  book 
contains  f.  159* — 160  an  episcopal  benediction  for  the  feast  of 
St.  Salvius  which  as  it  is  carefully  rhymed  and  generally  an 
interesting  example  of  English  liturgical  work  of  the  time  is 
printed  here. 


Benedictio  de  sancto  Salvio  episcopo  et  martyre. 

Celestium  benedictionum  dator,  et  virtutum  largitor,  sua 
vos  benedictione  exornet,  et  virtutibus  coronet.  Amen. 
Et  qui  sanctum  Salvium  prassulem  martirii  sui  cursum 

1  Known  later  in  France  as  S.  Sauge;  to  be  distinguished  from  St.  Salvius  known  at 
S.  Sauve,  or  S.  Salve,  patron  of  Montreuil,  and  bishop  of  Amiens  apparently  early  in  the  seventh 
century,  often  himself  confounded  with  various  other  persons  called  Salvus  or  Salvius. 

36 


feliciter  fecit  consummare,  vos   faciat  in  bonis   omnibus 
infatigabili  devotione  perseverare.  Amen. 
Sit  ipse  pro  nobis  intercessor  studiosus,  qui  hodie  trium- 
phali  agone  peracto  ccelos  intravit  victoriosus.  Amen. 
Quod  Ipse  prestare  dignetur,  etc. 

As  this  episcopal  benediction  comes  between  that  for  the  feast  of 
St.  John  Baptist  (24  June)  and  that  for  the  Vigil  of  SS.  Peter  and 
Paul  (28  June)  we  may  be  assured  that  it  is  for  the  feast  of  St. 
Salvius  of  Valenciennes  (26  June)  and  no  other.  Finally  the  Lam- 
beth MS.  159  already  cited  contains  f.  nob — inaan  account  of 
St.  Salvius  of  Valenciennes  marked  and  divided  into  eight  lessons 
to  be  read  at  matins;  there  can  be  little  doubt  (in  view  of  the  gen- 
eral character  of  that  MS.  as  described  above)  that  these  were  the 
eight  lessons  for  the  feast  marked  in  the  fifteenth  century  calendar  of 
Canterbury  cathedral  Sloane  MS.  3887.1 

When  the  facts  detailed  and  the  indications  given  in  pur- 
suing the  various  lines  of  enquiry  opened  out  in  the  preceding 
pages  are  taken  into  account,  they  appear  to  point  to  one,  and  one 
only  possible,  conclusion;  namely  that  the  calendar  B  is  the 
calendar  that  was  in  use  in  the  later  part  of  the  tenth  century 
and  the  earlier  part  of  the  eleventh  in  the  cathedral  church  of 
Canterbury;  and  the  difference  between  B  and  the  calendar  of 
that  church  in  the  thirteenth  and  following  centuries  proves, 
when  the  case  is  investigated,  not  to  be  a  valid  objection  to 
this  conclusion. 

To  put  the  case  in  its  due  light  it  would  be  necessary  to 
pursue  the  inquiry  here  initiated  and  point  out  how,  as  a  result 
of  the  Norman  Conquest,  the  imposition  of  the  calendar  of  the 
capital    city  of  Winchester  on  the  venerable  metropolitical  and 

1  A  copy  (doubtless  not  '  diplomatically  accurate ')  of  the  so-called  Passio  and  of  the  eight 
lessons  contained  in  the  MS.  Lamb.  159  occurs  in  British  Museum  Addit.  MS.  36,  600fF.11 — 12. 
St.  Salvius  is  also  found  at  26  June  in  the  calendar  of  Salisbury  MS.  150  and  in  that  of  Cotton 
MS.  Nero  A  11.  Both  are  clearly  west-country  calendars.  The  Salisbury  calendar  certainly  has 
some  curious  affinities  with  B,  although  at  first  sight  it  appears  to  be  of  a  quite  different  complexion. 
This  arises  in  great  measure  from  the  fact  that  it  goes  back  on  a  different  martyrological 
tradition  from  that  of  G,  and  consequently  of  B.  The  presence  of  St.  Salvius  in  the  Salisbury 
calendar  may  perhaps  indicate  that  the  cult  of  this  saint  at  Canterbury  cathedral  goes  back  at  least 
to  the  first  half  of  the  tenth  century. 

37 


mother  church  of  Canterbury,  strange  as  it  may  seem  at  first 
hearing,  has  about  it  nothing  exceptional,  and  how  other  English 
churches,  of  ancient  and  of  more  modern  foundation,  had  to 
submit  to  a  like  experience.  Thus  when  the  York  and  Exeter 
calendars  of  the  close  of  the  twelfth  century,  or  the  calendars  of 
the  printed  uses  of  Hereford  and  Salisbury,  are  analyzed  and 
resolved  into  their  various  elements,  after  account  is  taken  of 
local  peculiarities,  changes  of  vogue  in  devotions  and  cults,  and 
of  a  certain  independence  and  choice  in  adaptation,  what  is  found 
at  the  base  of  them  all  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  calendar 
of  the  church  of  Winchester  of  the  eleventh  century.1  This  is 
not  the  time  or  place  to  enter  on  even  a  rudimentary  treatment 
of  the  subject;  for  the  due  understanding  of  which  there  is  need 
of  a  printed  Table  in  a  plain,  simple  and  practical  form  without 
textual  niceties,  shewing  in  parallel  columns  the  contents  of  all 
the  extant  Anglo-Saxon  calendars  with  a  certain  number  of  calendars 
of  later  date. 

There  is  nothing  exceptional  or  indeed  really  strange  in  a 
radical  revolution  of  the  kind  indicated  in  regard  to  the  calendar 
in  England.  Winchester,  it  must  be  repeated,  in  the  eleventh 
century  was  the  capital  of  the  kingdom,  a  united  England;  and 
the  analogies  in  all  ages  and  regions  (in  spite  of  the  familiar 
exception  of  'Sarum')  go  to  show  how,  as  if  by  constant  rule  or 
predominant  attraction,  the  usages  and  liturgy-books  of  the 
church  at  the  seat  of  the  civil  authority  and  kingly  power  succeed 
in  the  long  run  in  modifying,  and  often  in  supplanting,  the  customs 
or  usages  of  churches  whose  pre-eminence  is  only  ecclesiastical. 
So  far  as  concerns  the  present  case  it  seems  clear  that  Winchester 
was  already  exercizing  this  influence  in  a  marked  way  at  the  time 

1  That  is,  aa  represented  by  the  calendars  in  Vitellius  E  xvm.  and  Arundel  60  ;  the 
Winchester  missal  at  Havre  assigned  by  M.  Delisle  to  about  a.  d.  1120  is  interesting  as  shewing 
the  further  variations  and  substantial  identity  of  this  calendar  for  another  generation;  and  the 
eleventh  century  calendar  in  Titus  D  xxvn,  is  of  course  useful  in  illustration.  The  calendar 
of  the  missal  of  Robert  of  Jumieges,  like  all  English  calendars  of  the  eleventh  century,  shews 
(ai  is  natural)  marks  of  Winchester  influence;  but  when  it  is  examined  as  a  whole,  and  analyzed, 
it  seems  to  me  that  its  affinities  really  are  with  what  I  may  call  the  west-country  group;  and,  of 
course,  it  is  unsafe  to  draw  any  conclusion  from  the  isolated  appearance  of  St.  Tibba  at  29 
December. 

38 


of  the  Conquest.1  But  the  question  that  properly  suggests  itself 
here  is  this:  at  what  date  did  the  change  of  calendar  take  place 
at  Canterbury?  The  answer,  at  least  at  present,  can  be  only  by 
way  of  conjecture  more  or  less  probable;  since  it  depends  on  the 
results  of  enquiries  on  more  lines  than  one  which,  at  least  in  a 
definite  and  accurate  manner,  can  as  yet  hardly  be  said  to  have 
been  begun  among  us.  It  has  been  pointed  out  above  (p.  30  n.  2) 
that  the  Canterbury  calendar  of  the  Arundel  MS.  155  shews  in 
its  list  of  feasts  indications  of  having  been  derived  from  an 
earlier  recension  of  Winchester  than  that  of  Arundel  MS.  60  of 
the  late  years  of  the  eleventh  century,  and  from  one  in  some 
respects  more  nearly  resembling  that  of  Vitellius  E  xvin  of  about 
fifty  years  earlier,  and  therefore  intermediate  between  these  two. 
It  is  at  the  same  time  to  be  observed  that  the  psalms  in  Arundel 
MS.  155  are  the  Roman  version,  but  corrected  by  another  hand 
into  the  Gallican,  whilst  in  the  Arundel  MS.  60  the  version, 
with  slight  lapses  into  the  Roman,  is  the  Gallican.  And  this 
seems  to  accord  with  the  indications  furnished  by  the  calendars 
of  these  two  MSS.  as  to  the  respective  dates  of  the  two  books. 
Such  variations  between  them,  in  both  calendar  and  psalm-text, 
find  (it  would  seem  from  what  has  been  said  above)  their  natural 
explanation  in  the  history  of  the  changes  in  divine  service  and 
the  liturgy  consequent  on  the  Norman  Conquest.  The  conjecture 
that  has  thus  been  made  as  to  the  probable  date  of  the  change 
at  Canterbury  arises  merely  on  an  examination  of  the  contents 
of  the  psalters  themselves;  but  it  finds,  in  fact,  countenance 
in  the  well-known  narrative  of  Eadmer  as  to  the  cult  of  St.  Elphege 
from  which  it  would  clearly  appear  that  Lanfranc  actually  had  the 
reform  of  the  calendar  of  his  church  under  consideration  early  in 
the  year  1079. 

1  Many  years  ago  the  late  Dean  Henderson  pointed  out  (York  Pontifical,  Surtees  Soc.  1875 
vol.  6 1  p.  xxiii)  how  bishop  Leofric  of  Exeter  in  his  additions  to  his  missal,  used  a  Winchester 
book  and  copied  without  change  forms  that  were  applicable  to  Winchester  alone.  The  Pontifical 
now  C.  C.  C  C  MS.  146  seems  to  be  another  instance  of  the  spread  of  Winchester  influence  at  the 
close  of  the  eleventh  century,  this  time  at  Worcester  (see  Henderson,  ubi  supra,  pp.  xvii  and  xxx); 

and  there  are  items  in  the  Worcester  calendar   C.  CC.  C.  MS.  391   which   seem  to   point  in  the 

same  direction. 


39 


SINCE    the    foregoing    section    was    in    type    the    Bosvvorth 
Psalter  has  been  purchased  by   the  Trustees  of  the  British 
Museum.      Strictly   speaking   the  object  in  view  of   which 
the  tract  on  the  Calendar  was  written  is  attained,   and   there   the 
matter  mi^ht  be  allowed  to  rest.     But  it  is  sometimes  well  to  lis- 

D  m  m 

ten  to  adverse  counsel;  and,  to  say  the  truth,  in  penning  the  tract, 
which  is  better  called  by  the  technical  title  of 'Consultatio',  I  was 
conscious  also  in  a  remote  way,  of  real  dissatisfaction  with  the 
manner  in  which  documents  of  the  nature  of  Calendar  B  are 
commonly  dealt  with. 

To  exemplify  this  it  is  not  necessary  to  go  further  than  the 
calendar  G.  As  we  peruse  its  bald  list  of  mixed  names,  we  desire 
if  possible  to  know  the  exact  nature  of  the  document;  what  its 
elements  are;  how  the  precise  items  making  up  each  element  come 
together,  and  how  it  happens  that  these  particular  elements,  and 
not  others  also,  make  up  the  calendar.  We  want  to  know  the 
genesis,  the  past  history  of  the  Glastonbury  calendar,  its  place 
among  its  contemporaries  and  its  relation  to  similar  documents, 
that  come  after  it  in  point  of  time.  We  may  read  the  dozen  broad 
pages  which  the  editor  of  G  has  devoted  to  its  examination,  with 
the  many  lists  of  names  in  small  type  and  the  considerable  appar- 
atus of  dates,  and,  at  the  end  of  it  all  have  to  admit  to  being  in 
the  same  state  of  enlightment  as  when  we  began,  and  with  a  feel- 
ing that  this  is  not  wholly  our  own  fault. 

In  these  circumstances  I  must  own  to  having  cherished  some 
sort  of  vague  hope  that  the  treatment  of  the  calendar  B  in  this 
tract  might  at  least  suggest  another  way.  This  hope  now  deter- 
mined me  not  to  lose  interest  at  the  stage  of  page  proof  and  to 
go  forward.  But  there  was  a  drawback  to  this  course.  If  the 
print  were  to  be  useful  now  it  appeared  necessary  to  say  more  on 
some  matters  than  is  found  in  the  preceding  Consultation.  Strictly 
speaking  I  think  that  what  is  there  said  ought  to  be  enough  if 
the  restricted  scope  of  the  tract  with  its  one  single  and  precise 
object,  viz.  the  discussion,  elucidation  and  placing  of  B.,  is  borne 

40 


in  mind.  To  keep  the  treatment  of  the  case  within  reasonable 
limits  it  was  necessary  to  presume  a  knowledge  of  the  history,  or 
origin,  or  fate  of  this  or  that  particular  cult,  or  (what  is  called  now- 
a-days)  'cultual'  tendency;  to  touch  on  it  in  a  line  or  two  and  to 
dismiss  the  subject  as  known.  But  I  readily  allow  and  submit 
to  the  fate  that  should  attend  presumption;  and  what  follows 
here  must  be  discursive,  informal,  and  I  am  afraid  also  lengthy. 

Any  one  who  has  taken  the  trouble  to  read  the  foregoing 
section  will  have  seen  how  the  discussion  turns  on  the  real  character 
of  the  calendar  in  MS.  Arundel  155.  The  argument  endeavours 
to  explain  how  a  calendar  substantially  that  of  the  church  of 
Winchester  superseded  the  ancient  calendar  of  Christ  Church 
Canterbury  preserved  in  the  Bosworth  Psalter.  In  the  course  of 
this  statement  the  calendar  in  Vitellius  E  xvm  is  taken  as  represen- 
ting the  calendar  of  the  church  of  Winchester  *  about  the  middle 
of  the  eleventh  century;  Arundel  155,  the  new  calendar  of  Christ 
Church  after  its  reformation  by  Lanfranc;  and  Arundel  60  as  a 
post-Conquest  calendar  of  the  church  of  Winchester. 

To  introduce  what  has  to  be  said  let  us  imagine  a  discourse 
somewhat  of  the  following  tenor:  c  If  we  examine  the  calendars  of 
'Arundel  155,  Arundel  60  and  Cotton  MS.  Vitellius  E  xvm  it  is 
'  clear  that  the  predominant  local  element  is  the  number  of  saints 
'of  the  church  of  Winchester.  In  Arundel  155,  for  instance, 
'  there  are  but  two  local  Canterbury  feasts  whilst  there  are  no  less 
'  than  five  of  the  Church  of  Winchester.2  In  Arundel  60  the 
1  specifically  Winchester  feasts  are  fourteen  in  number  if  we 
'include  at  18  October  St.  Justus;3  whilst  in  Vitellius  E  xviii  the 
'  Winchester  commemorations  have  risen  to  sixteen,  not  to 
'  mention  the  second  feast  of  St.  Eadburga  on  1 8  July,  since 
'  it  may  be  open  to  doubt  whether  the  Eadburga  in  question  is 
c  really  the  Winchester  nun.     These  three  MSS.  are  all  indubit- 

1  In  speaking  of  the  calendar  of  any  church  in  pre-Conquest  days  we  must  of  course  bear 
in  mind  that  we  may  not  assume  a  formalized  diocesan  observance  such  as  was  introduced  in  the 
later  middle  ages  by  the  fixation  of  uses  in  the  12th  and  13th  centuries.  This  later  idea  must 
not  be  assumed  as  applicable  to  the  state  of  things  before  the  Conquest. 

1  2  July  Swithun,  15  July  Translation  of  Swithun,  4  Sept.  Translation  of  Birinus  and 
Cuthbert,  3  Dec.  Birinus,  13  Dec.  Judoc,  which  last  feast  by  the  eleventh  century  had  become 
denizen  at  Winchester. 

3  A  great  relic  of  this  taint  was  given  to  Winchester  by  Athelstan. 

41 
E 


*  ably  of  the  eleventh  century.  Now  we  know  from  observation 
'that  in  the  case  of  local  cults  and  so  also  in  calendars  the 
Maw  is  that  of  accretion:  and  in  these  three  MSS.  we  see  how  in 

*  the  course  of  less  than  a  century — perhaps  in  the  space  of  no 

*  more    than    two   generations — the    modest    allowance    of    five 

*  strictly   local   Winchester   feasts  of    Arundel    155    has   tripled 

*  itself.     We  also  observe  how  in  that  calendar  no  saint  occurs 

*  of  a  later  date  than  St.  Elphege  of  Canterbury  whose  general 
'cult  was  formally  inaugurated  by  the  translation  of  his  relics 
'in  1023.  We  may  therefore  conjecturally  assign  it  to  a  date 
'  nearly  coincident  with  that  event,  say  1030.  The  calendar  of 
'Arundel  MS.  60  may  be  placed  approximately  a  generation 
Mater,  say  at  latest  1060,  and  the  Vitellius  calendar  a  generation 
1  later  still,  about  the  close  of  the  eleventh  century — say  about 
'the  vcar  1090.  It  is  unnecessary  to  dwell  at  length  on  other 
'features  of  Vitellius  E  xvm,  besides  this  local  one,  which  afford 
'evidence  of  its  late  origin  in  such  cults  as  that  of  St.  Joseph 
'  for  instance,  and  of  the  Conception  of  the  B.  V.  M.,  which  are 
'absent  from  both  Arundel  155  and  Arundel  60, '  etc  etc. 

By  all  this  it  is  not  my  intention  to  imply  that  any  such  argu- 
ments have  been  or  would  be  adopted  by  any  individual  person. 
This  being  understood,  to  make  our  further  progress  clear  from 
the  beginning  it  is  proper  to  enumerate,  out  of  the  many  parti- 
cular features  of  these  calendars  that  offer  an  opportunity  for 
discussion,  the  four  which  I  propose  to  examine.     They  are: 

(5)  The  two  feasts  of  the  Conception  of  the  B.  V.  M.  (8.  Dec.) 
and  of  her  Oblation  in  the  Temple  at  the  age  of  three  years  (21 
Nov.)  found  in  Vitellius  E  xvm,  but  not  found  in  MSS.  Arun- 
del 60  and  155. 

(6)  The  Breton  feasts,  which  are  more  strongly  marked  in 
the  Vitellius  calendar  than  in  the  other  two. 

(7)  The  entries  in  Arundel  1  $$  that  have  relation  to  relic  cults 
that  are  specifically  characteristic  of  the  cathedral  of  Christ 
Church,  Canterbury. 

(8)  The  feasts  of  local  Winchester  saints  as  found  in 
Arundel  155. 


4* 


5.  OF  THE  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  THE  FEAST  OF  THE 
CONCEPTION  OF  THE  B.V.M. :  AND  OF  THE  FEAST 
OF  THE  OBLATION 

At  p.  32  above  the  action  of  Lanfranc  in  suppressing  the 
feast  of  the  Conception  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  in  his  cathedral 
church  of  Canterbury  has  been  mentioned.  Until  within  the 
last  half  century  the  famous  letter  of  St.  Bernard  to  the  canons  of 
Lyons,  commonly  assigned  to  about  the  year  r  140,  was  the  only 
authentic  document  that  could  be  adduced  as  to  the  origins  in  the 
Western  Church  of  what  is  now  the  greatly  honoured  feast  of  the 
Immaculate  Conception.  All  the  rest  was  legend  around  which 
imagination  could  play,  or  not,  at  will.  In  i860  the  late  Senior 
of  the  Bollandists,  P.  Victor  de  Buck,  called  attention  in  the 
(Brussels)  Precis  historiques  to  the  information  on  the  subject  in 
the  letters  of  Osbert  de  Clare,  monk  and  by  and  by  abbat  of 
Westminster,  which  had  been  printed  some  fourteen  years  earlier. 
It  was  not  until  1886  that  further  progress  in  the  enquiry  was 
made.  More  has  been  done  since;  so  that  it  is  now  possible  to 
base  our  statements  as  to  the  origins  of  this  feast  on  definite  and 
positive  information.1 

1  The  list  given  in  this  note  is  not  intended  as  a  conspectus  of  what  is  called  the  'literature' 
of  the  subject  which  is  vast.  Only  those  items  are  noticed  which,  in  one  way  or  another,  have 
advanced  our  knowledge. 

(1)  P.  Victor  de  Buck,  as  stated  in  the  text,  opened  the  inquiry  as  to  the  origins  of  the 
feast  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  in  two  articles  in  the  Precis  historiques  (nouv.  serie,  tome  ii, 
i860,  pp.  64-97,  545-582)  entitled  'Osbert  de  Clare  et  l'abbe  Anselme  instituteurs  de  la  fete  de 
l'Immaculatee  Conception  de  la  Sainte  Vierge  dans  l'Eglise  Latine'.  With  the  documents  before 
him  this  writer  could  only  attribute  the  origins  of  the  feast  to  about  the  years  1127-1130;  he 
knew  nothing  of  the  witness  of  Anglo-Saxon  antiquity.  The  '  abbe  Anselme '  was  St.  Anselm's 
nephew  for  so  many  years  abbat  of  St.  Edmundsbury. 

(2)  In  ignorance  of  P.  V.  de  Buck's  articles  I  put  together  such  items  as  had  occurred  to 
me  relative  to  the  feast  in  England  before  the  Conquest  and  up  to  about  the  year  1 130  in  a  paper 
that  appeared  anonymously  in  the  Downside  Review  vol.  v,  1886,  pp.  107-119.  This  was  reprinted 
separately  with  two  or  three  pages  of  Prefatory  Note,  London,  Burns  and  Oates,  1904,  under  the 
title:  On  the  origins  of  the  Feast  of  the  Conception  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary. 

(3)  Abb6  Vacandard  utilizing  this  paper  in  his  Fie  de  Saint  Bernard  ii.  pp.  78-96  (and  in  an 
earlier  article  in  La  Science  catholique,  Sept.  1893,  not  seen  by  me)  placed  the  whole  question  in  a 
proper  theological  and  apologetic  setting.    His  new  assignment  of  St.  Bernard's  letter  to  about 

43 


The  following  is  the  story  in  outline,  proceeding  from  the 
later  stage  to  the  earlier.  It  is  with  the  period  anterior  to  Saint 
Bernard's  letter  of  c.  1 140  that  alone  we  are  concerned;  and  the 
scene  of  the  story  is  in  England  only.  It  begins  for  us  with 
the  commotions,  disputes  and  contentions  among  persons  of  the 
highest  consideration,  settled,  as  it  turned  out  once  and  for  all, 
by  the  London  synod  of  1129,  in  a  decision  for  which  Wilkins' 
Concilia  and  our  historians  generally,  except  a  simple  chronicler 
like  old  Stowe,  may  be  consulted  in  vain. 

the  years  1128-1 130  it  purely  arbitrary.    So  far  as  indications  of  date  exist  they  tend  if  anything 
to  show  the  date  rather  as  later  than  earlier. 

(4)  In  ignorance  of  all  that  precedes  abbe  J.  L.  Adam  in  the  Revue  catholique  de  Normandit 
(15  Sept.  1895,  pp.  115-126;  15  Jan.  1896,  pp.  357-392)  published  two  articles  entitled  'La 
Fetede  l'lmmaculee  Conception  dite  "Fcteaux  Normands"  d'apres  les  quatre  breviaires  manuscrits 
de  Coutinccs  conserves  a  la  Bibliotheque  de  Valognes'  where  he  resided  as  chaplain  to  the  Dames 
Augustincs.  With  the  limited  informations  at  his  disposal  and  through  the  method  adopted  the 
writer  felt  able  to  '  prove '  that  the  feast  was  celebrated  in  Normandy  in  the  eleventh  century  and 
he  concluded  that  such  initiation  and  primal  institution  of  the  feast  of  the  Conception  was  '  un 
titre  de  gloire  des  plus  precieux  pour  notre  province  de  Normandie  qui  peut,  a  bon  droit,  s'enor- 
gueiller'  etc.  (Jan.  1896  p.  382). 

(5)  This  called  abbi  Vacandard  into  the  field  once  more  who,  in  an  article  in  the  Re-vue  da 
£>uesricjs  historijues  (Jan.  1 897),  after  a  review  of  the  earlier  liturgical  books  of  the  diocese 
of  Rouen  showed  that  there  is  no  trace  of  the  feast  in  Normandy  earlier  than  the  twelfth 
century.  He  also  states:  '  l'appellation  de  "Fete  aux  Normands"  (for  this  Conception  feast)  ne 
semble  pai  remonter  au  dela  du  xiiie  siecle'  (none  of  these  writers  seem  to  notice  Wace's  poem 
published  in  184.2  by  Mancel  and  Tr£butien). 

(6)  The  approach  of  the  Jubilee  of  the  Dogmatic  Definition  by  H.  H.  Pope  Pius  IX  in  1  854 
set  several  pens  to  work.  The  Month,  the  English  literary  organ  of  the  Society  of  Jesus,  in  May 
1904  printed,  pp.  449-465,  an  article  entitled  'The  Irish  origins  of  our  Lady's  Conception  Feast' 
by  the  Rev.  H.  Thurston.     On  this  some  remarks  will  be  found  further  on. 

(7)  In  the  number  of  20  September  1904  of  the  Paris  Etudes  religieuses,  the  French  literary 
organ  of  the  Society  of  Jesus,  P.  Augustin  Noyon  published  an  article  '  Les  Origines  de  la  Fete  de 
l'lmmaculee  Conception  (xe,  xi*",  xii''  siecles) '.  The  point  of  importance  is  this:  that  outside 
Normandy  French  liturgical  MSS.  do  not  mention  the  feast  until  the  thirteenth  century  (pp.  27- 
29  of  the  separate  print).  I  have  reason  to  think  that  at  this  time  some  considerable  pains  were 
taken  to  enquire  into  the  state  of  the  liturgical  evidence  and  with  negative  results  for  the  earlier 
period. 

(8)  The  same  year,  in  conjunction  with  Fr.  Thomas  Slater  S.  J.,  Fr.  Thurston  printed 
(Freiburg,  Herder)  the  most  valuable  of  these  Jubilee  memorials  under  the  title  Eadmeri  monachi 
Cantuariensis  Tractatus  de  Conceptione  Sanctae  Mariae  nunc  primum  integer  ad  codicum  fidem  editus 

44 


On  1 6th  January  1127  died  Richard  de  Belmeis  bishop  of 
London,  a  prelate  who  had  had  a  dream  of  the  pallium  and  of  an 
archbishopric  of  London,  but  had  been  met  by  St.  Anselm  with 
an  emphatic  £  Never  whilst  I  live'.  Whatever  may  have  been 
Richard's  views,  on  the  8th  December  following  his  death  West- 
minster Abbey  initiated  a  novelty  in  the  diocese  and  celebrated  with 
a  certain  eclat  a  feast  of  the  Conception  of  the  Blessed  Virgin. 
There  was  an  outcry  at  once.  '  It  is  simply  ridiculous',  said  some; 
and  'such  a  thing  was  never  heard  of.     These  busy,  or  scan- 

adjectis  quibusdam  monumenth  coaetaneis.  To  say  the  truth  in  this  little  volume  I  saw  the 
accomplishment  of  a  vaii  I  had  for  some  years  entertained  but  had  been  unable  to  fulfil,  viz:  the 
confrontation  of  the  tract  long  since  printed  in  the  Appendix  to  St.  Anselm's  works  (MigneP.  L. 
159.  301  seqq.)  with  the  MS.  C.C.CC.  371  p.  395  seqq.,  containing  the  Opuscula  of  Eadmer  by 
whom  alone  I  had  come  to  believe  this  tract  could  have  been  penned.  My  interest  however  would 
have  been  confined  to  illustrating  the  passage  translated  in  the  text  just  below.  But  the  print  of 
F  F.  Thurston  and  Slater  is  an  edition  omnibus  numeris  absoluta;  and  is  enriched  with  those  theo- 
logical indications  and  elucidations  so  precious  to  a  layman. 

(9)  It  remains  to  add  one  item  more.  Mere  good  fortune  or  happy  chance  has  at  length  given  me 
an  opportunity  of  examining,  but  for  a  few  minutes  only,  the  MS.  Bodl.  Auct.  D.  4.  18  [olim  NE  C. 
4.  11.)  which  some  fourteen  years  ago  I  had  noted  from  Bernard's  catalogue  as  containing 
the  long  lost  tract  on  the  feast  of  the  Conception  against  St.  Bernard  by  Nicholas  of  St.  Albans. 
It  seems  almost  certain  Leland  [de  Scr.  ed.  Hall  p.  186)  had  never  actually  seen  this  tract,  but  only 
one  of  the  later  pieces  addressed  to  Peter  of  Celle  who  is  evidently  Leland's  *  abba3  Remigianus'; 
he  must  have  made  a  mistake  as  to  the  abbat's  name  which  he  gives  as  '  Hugo'.  The  title  in  the 
Bodleian  MS.  is  in  a  hand  seemingly  of  the  fourteenth  century.  The  absence  of  a  title  in  the  MS. 
as  originally  written  in  the  twelfth  has  alone  perhaps  saved  this  copy  from  destruction.  I  give 
here  but  one  extract,  the  writer's  account  of  the  origin  of  the  feast,  and  then  readily  hand 
over  the  whole  for  investigation  to  those  who  are  interested  in  the  subject.  The  text  halts  in 
grammar  but  runs  as  follows:  'Legimus  enim  quod  quidam  solitarius  singulis  annis,  multo  jam 
elapso  tempore,  signanter  una  vel  die  vel  nocte  notata,  festivas  angelorum  voces  in  sublimi 
audisset,  rogasse  dominum  attentius  quare  illo  potius  quam  alio  aliquo  tempore  angelorum 
concentum  audiret;  in  responsisque  accepisse  quia  illo  die  beata  virgo  et  mater  Dei  Maria  nata 
fuerit,  et  ideo  angelos  celeberrimi  gaudii  concentu  diem  ilium  recolere.  Legimus  nihilominus  quod 
cum  abbas  Elsinus'  &c.  (f.  ioia).  I  do  not  remember  to  have  read  elsewhere  this  story  of  the 
solitary  which  the  author  gives  (seemingly  from  some  written  source)  as  an  alternative  to  the 
Helsin  story.  As  among  the  directing  and  ruling  classes  in  London  in  1127-1128  so  too  here  all 
knowledge  of  the  old  English  pre-Conquest  feast  had  died  out;  Eadmer  must  however  have  been 
only  one  of  many  then  living  who  kept  fresh  and  treasured  their  childhood's  memories  of  the 
former  state  of  things.  This  seems  a  pertinent  instance  how  soon  in  matters  of  devotion 
knowledge  of  recent  facts  passes  out  of  mind  and  how  easily  legend  takes  its  place. 

45 


dalized,  persons  knew  what  to  do  and  made  straight  for  the  back 
stairs  leading  up  direct  to  the  privacy  of  the  greatest  personage 
in  the  land.  They  went  to  Roger  bishop  of  Salisbury,  the  king's 
most  trusted  counsellor  and  minister,  and  Bernard,  bishop  of  St. 
David's,  who  had  been  chaplain  of  the  late  queen,  the  good 
Matilda.  But  there  was  a  serious  difficulty  in  the  way.  Henry, 
the  king  himself,  had  already  some  time  before  begged  his  friend 
and  protege  Hugh,  abbat  of  his  own  foundation  of  Reading,  to 
establish  there  the  obnoxious  feast;  and  at  the  prayer  of  so  great 
and  clerkly  a  founder  this  had  been  done.  As  time  went  on  the 
outlook  did  not  improve.  In  January  1128  Gilbert,  surnamed 
from  his  learning  'the  Universal',  a  great  doctor  and  divine,  was 
consecrated  bishop  of  London.  The  innovating  party  now  felt 
secure  on  the  side  of  their  diocesan  also;  for  Osbert  had  found 
some  means  of  sounding  his  ideas  and  had  discovered  he  was  *a 
most  catholic-minded  man  and  sufficiently  well-instructed'  in 
regard  to  the  particular  point  at  issue.  But  still  there  must  have 
been  cause  for  anxiety,  and  Osbert  and  his  friends  were  particularly 
anxious  to  learn  the  practice  and  custom  of  Rome  and  to  know 
whether  any  support  of  precedent  could  be  obtained  from  thence 
in  favour  of  'the  venerable  Conception  of  the  Mother  of  God.' 
This  was  a  vain  hope;  Osbert  was  doubtless  little  versed  in  the 
Roman  manner  of  mind. 

Still  with  the  king  and  Gilbert  on  their  side  they  were  not 
discouraged,  and  determined  to  bring  the  matter  to  an  issue  in  the 
council  that  met  in  London  at  Michaelmas  1129.  The  result 
is  preserved  to  us  only  in  a  half  legendary  form  in  the  Tewkes- 
bury Annals  (Ann.  Mon.  1.  45J  thus  rendered  by  Stowe  under  this 
year:  'by  authoritie  of  the  pope,  the  Feast  of  the  Conception  of 
our  Ladie  was  confirmed.'  The  general  history  of  the  feast  is 
sufficient  to  assure  us  that  the  first  five  words  are  without  foun- 
dation unless  in  a  complimentary  sense;  but  it  also  assures  us 
that  the  rest  of  the  sentence  is  substantially  true.  Opposition  in 
England  is  no  more  heard  of,  but  only  defence  of  the  feast;  and, 
as  the  later  calendars  shew,  it  soon  became  in  this  country 
practically  universal. 

Westminster  and  Reading  had  had  companions  and  forerunners 
in  the  work  of  instituting  (or,  as  we  shall  now  immediately  see, 

46 


restoring)  the  feast  of  the  Conception  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  of 
8  December.  In  fact  the  disputes  and  troubles  in  London  in 
1 1 27 — 1 129  had  a  long,  if  then  commonly  forgotten,  story 
behind  them.  Strange  as  such  a  notion  may  appear  to  us  to-day, 
to  the  innovators  the  observance  of  this  feast  was  a  revindication 
of  ancient  English  piety,  an  assertion  against  new  Norman  lord- 
liness and  learning  of  a  despised  and  down-trodden  Englishry. 
This  is  what  Eadmar,  a  hearty  and  thoroughgoing  if  political  and 
prudent  partizan  drawing  on  his  own  recollections  has  to  say  as  to 
the  feast  of  the  Conception: 

'  In  former  days  it  was  celebrated  more  commonly  than  now, 

*  and  by  those  chiefly  in  whom  there  dwelt  a  pure  simplicity  of 
'  soul  and  a  humble  devotion.  But  when  learning  of  a  wider 
'  range  and  an  all-dominating  tendency  to  enquire  into  the  reasons 
'of  things  had  imbued  and  lifted  up  the  minds  of  some,  this 
'  new  learning,  contemptuous  of  the  simpleness  of  the  poor  in 

*  spirit,  did   away  with  this  solemnity;  and,   banished  it  utterly 

*  (redegit  in  nichiT)  as  wanting  in  reasonableness.  And  the  view 
'  entertained  by  these  persons  had  such  irresistible  force  because 
'  they  were  pre-eminent  in  both  Church  and  State,  and  were  the 

*  wealthy  ones  of  the  land.  But  when  I  considered  within  myself 
'the    simple-mindedness   of  the   men   of  earlier    days   and   the 

*  eminent  genius  of  the  moderns  .  .  .  some  strong  and  condem- 
natory, if  Scriptural,  reflections,  occurred  to  Eadmer  that  need 
not  be  repeated  here;  any  more  than  the  reasons  which  he  reports 
as  adduced  by  those  '  who  say  that  there  ought  not  to  be  any 
'memory  [by  way  of  feast]  of  the  Conception  of  the  Virgin 
'  Mother  in  the  Church'.  He  then  continues:  'And  thus 
'  those  acute  and  able  persons,  in  virtue  of  their  position  of 
'  authority  on  which  they  prided  themselves,1  did  not  scruple  to 
1  abolish  what  the  simple  and  perfect  love  of  our  Lady,  that  had 
'animated  those  of  old  time,  had  established;  namely,  the  feast 
*of  her  Conception.  Having  thus  seen  the  mode  of  proceeding 
c  of  the  eminent  persons  who  succeeded  in  doing  away  with  the 

*  feast  of  the  Mother  of  God,  let  us  cast  a  glance  at  the  love  of 

*  the  simple  folk  who  lament  over  the  loss  of  so  great  a  gladness.' 

1  'Sua  (  ?  suae),  qua   se  pollere  gloriabantur,  auctoritatis  ratione'  ;    cf.  above  p.   31   n.  2, 
4quasdam  mutavit  sola  auctoritatis  suae  deliberatione*. 

47 


Eadmer  proceeds  to  do  this  by  endeavouring  for  their  protection 
to  meet  in  the  rest  of  the  tract  reasoning  or  argument  by- 
reasoning  or  argument.1 

The  article  2  in  the  footnote  p.  43  above  gives  a  list  of  the 
pre-Conquest  documents  known  in  1886  as  evidencing  the 
observance  of  the  feast  of  the  Conception  in  the  older  simpler 
England,  the  memories  of  which,  the  impressions  of  his  childhood, 
Eadmer  in  his  old  age  looked  back  upon  with  such  affection. 
These  documents  were  the  Winchester  calendars  in  the  Cotton 
MSS.  Yitellius  E  win  and  Titus  D  xxvn;  the  Benedictional  of 
Canterbury  cathedral  Harl.  MS.  2892;  and  another  Benedictio- 
nal, Additional  MS.  28188.2  To  the  churches  of  Winchester, 
with  Canterbury  and  Exeter  borrowing  from  Winchester,  it  is 
now  possible  to  add  Worcester  in,  seemingly,  the  early  days  of 
St.  Wulstan's  episcopate.  The  calendar  of  the  C.  C.  C.  C.  MS. 
391,  a  venerable  Worcester  book  which  has  received  the  name  of 
1  Portiforum  S.  Oswaldi'  has  this  entry  at  8  December:  c  Conceptio 

1  Eadmer,  De  Conception  Sanctae  Mariae  ed.  Thurston  pp  1-4  ;   Migne  P.  L.  159.  301-303. 

*  This  episcopal  Benedictional  has  been  commonly  called  a  Benedictional  of  Romsey  Abbey 
the  Hampshire  nunnery;  but  also  of  Ramsey  in  Huntingdonshire.  The  reason  seems  to  be  this. 
In  the  second  ind  very  brief  litany  of  the  rite  of  dedication  of  a  church  one  virgin  saint  only  is 
invoked,  Ethelfleda  of  Romsey.  The  official  cataloguist  has  on  this  fact  concluded  summarily  that 
the  book  was  a  Romsey  book.  But  the  case  is  more  complex;  and  of  the  two  litanies  the  first  seems 
to  be  the  more  distinctly  indicative.  On  the  invocations  of  SS.  German  and  Patrick  stress 
doubtless  must  not  be  laid;  but  the  cult  of  St.  Sativola  is  to  my  knowledge  a  local  cult  of  Exeter 
•which  does  not  extend  beyond  that  diocese.  Neither  in  litanies  nor  calendars  have  I  been  able  to 
find  trace  of  her  cult  elsewhere  although  the  name  has  found  its  way  into  one  or  two  late  marty- 
rologics;  e.g.  the  margin  of  the  martyrology  of  Christ  Church  Dublin.  Another  invocation 
deserves  attention  in  this  longer  litany,  especially  in  an  English  MS.  of  so  early  a  date,  that  of 
St.  Olave.  Exeter  adopted  this  cult  in  a  manner  quite  singular.  The  MS.  of  the  eleventh  century 
that  has  of  recent  years  been  called  the  'Collectar  of  bishop  Leofric',  Harl.  2961,  contains 
ff.  I23a-I26b  an  office  of  St.  Olave  different  from  any  of  those  printed  in  Storm's  Monumenta 
historiae  Norvegiae  (Kristiania,  1S80,  pp.  228-271).  With  one  exception,  the  fragment  of  a  gradual 
written  about  1300,  Storm  knew  of  no  liturgical  material  earlier  than  the  printed  breviaries. 
In  regard  to  unaltered  copies  of  Winchester  formulae  found  in  Harl.  MS.  281S8  see  ante  p.  38 
note  2.  In  view  of  oil  the  facts  of  the  case  the  Romsey  (or  Ramsey)  attribution  of  Harl.  MS.  28 1 88 
has  to  be  reconsidered  and  should,  I  think,  certainly  be  given  up. 


48 


sancte  Dei  genitricis  Mariae  '.*  The  absence  of  the  feast  from  what 
I  may  call  the  western  group  of  Anglo-Saxon  calendars,  with 
their  generally  archaic  and  conservative  character,  is  hardly 
less  significant. 

I  take  advantage  of  the  present  occasion  to  indicate  the  reasons 
which  induce  me  now  to  believe,  counter  to  what  I  thought  in 
1886,  that  the  feast  of  the  Conception  was  in  fact  introduced  into 
England  from  Southern  Italy,  or  at  least  under  South  Italian  influ- 
ences. 

This  feast  of  8  December  has  to  be  considered  in  connection 
with  another  found  in  the  two  Winchester  calendars  Vitellius  E 
xviii  and  Titus  D  xxvn  at  21  November  thus:  '  Oblatio  sancte 
Marie  in  templo  Domini  cum  esset  trium  annorum.'  This  entry 
might  at  first  sight  appear  as  if  one  of  that  class  of  c  historical ' 
memoranda  so  well  known  in  our  ancient  calendars,  like  c  Adam 
creatus  est ',  '  Egressus  Noe  de  area  '  etc.  But  such  an  impression 
would  be  incorrect.  In  the  Canterbury  Benedictional  Harl.  MS. 
2892  fol.  i86a  is  an  episcopal  benediction  for  this  feast  there 
entitled: l  De  Presentatione  sancte  Mariae  \2  Twenty  years  ago  the 
marble  calendar  of  Naples  assigned  to  the  close  of  the  ninth 
century  was  the  only  early  western  document  outside  England 
known  to  give  the  feast; 3  and  it  seemed  loose  method  to  knit  up  the 
commemorations  in  our  eleventh  century  English  books  with  it. 
A  glance  at  the  documents  set  forth  pp.  84-85  of  T.  Toscani's 
Ad  Typica  Gr<ecorum  Animadversiones  (Romae,  Typ.  de  Prop.  Fide, 

1  This  entry  is  wanting  in  the  calendar  of  the  Bodleian  MS.  Junius  99  of  about  the 
•ame  date  commonly  stated  to  be  a  Worcester  calendar. 

2  It  will  be  as  well  to  print  it  here. 

BENEDICTIO  DE  PRESENTATIONE  SANCTE  MARIAE 

Benedictionum  celestium  vos  Dominus  imbre  locupletet,  et  sanctuaria  cordium 
vestrorum  sue  habitationis  visitatione  perlustret,  qui  beatam  Mariam  angelico  ora- 
culo  concipiendam  predixit. 

Et  quae  ilium  qui  panis  est  angelorum  in  sui  uteri  habitaculo  meruit  baiulare,  tos 
diu  hie  adiuvet  et  vivere,  et  post  celica  regna  feliciter  penetrare.     Amen. 

Et  sicut  sibi  congaudetis  honoris  gratia  celebrantes  hunc  diem  quo  templum  Dei, 
sacrarium  Spiritus  Sancti,  in  aula  Dei  est  presentatum,  ita  vos  faciat  purificatis 
nevii  contagiorum  unico  Filio  suo  presentari,  et  in  albo  beati  ordinis  ascribi.  Amen. 

Quod  Ipse  prestare  dignetur. 
*  It  does  not  contain  the  feast  of  2 1  November. 

49 


1864)  will  shew  the  need  of  proceeding  cautiously  in  such  a  case. 
Dmitrievsky's  volume  of  Typica  (annual  Directories  of  church 
offices;  in  English,  Pies)  bearing  the  date  1895,  with  its  print 
of  Constaninopolitan  documents  of  as  early  a  date  as  the  ninth 
and  tenth  centuries  gives  us  firm  standing  ground;  and  now  we 
may  conclude  with  practical  certainty  that  in  the  Greek  monas- 
teries newly  founded  or  revived  in  Lower  Italy,  both  the  feast 
of  the  Conception  (but  on  9  December)  and  that  of  the  Offering 
in  the  Temple  (on  21  November)  were  already  received  as 
established  and  accepted  as  traditional.1  It  is,  I  believe,  through 
contact  of  Englishmen  with  such  Greek  monks  that  these  two 
feasts  came  to  us  some  time  in  the  early  decades  of  the  eleventh 
century,  and  were  established  in  the  two  great  and  dominant 
churches,  the  regal  and  the  primatial,  of  Anglo-Saxon  England. 

If  the  reader  feel  disposed  to  meet  such  an  idea  at  once  with 
incredulity,  I  would  plead  at  least  for  suspension  of  judgement. 
There  has  yet  to  be  worked  out — and  in  complete  detail,  down 
to  matters  so  trivial  as  feasts,  cults,  relics,  commerce  of  books — 
the  question  of  the  relations  of  England  with  the  Continent 
from  (say)  920  to  1040.  We  must  endeavour  too,  to  realize 
the  trains  that  followed  archbishop  after  archbishop  on  pilgrimage 
in  quest  of  the  pallium,  and  pilgrimages  less  business-like  such 
as  those  recorded  in  the  well  known  extract  from  the  St.  Gall 
Confraternity  Book,  or  the  less  vulgarized  entry  in  that  of 
Pfaffers  (Mon.  Germ.  hist. ,  Lib.  Confrat.  p.  363);  and  realize  also 
what  these  may  have  meant  for  the  importation  of  foreign  and 
outlandish  ways  in  so  aspiring  and  modern  an  England  as  that 
of  the  tenth  century,  the  minds  and  souls  of  men  and  their 
attractions  being  what  they  then  were.  It  might  even  be  that 
the  journey  of  Canute  to  Rome,  for  instance,  was  the  very  occasion 
for  the  borrowing  of  these  feasts  of  the  Oblation  and  Conception 
and  that  they  were  adopted  from  the  monastery  of  St.  Sabas  in 
Rome  itself.2     I  may  be  allowed  to  repeat  here  what  was  written 

1  A.  Dmitrievsky,  Opuanie  liturgkicakikb  rukopiui  etc  1  (Kiev,  1895)  pp.  25,  29,  203,  205. 

'  Perhaps  it  may  be  as  well  to  explain  in  regard  to  these  words  that  the  practice  of  '  Rome' 
is  in  no  wise  here  in  question.  It  is  all  a  purely  Greek  affair.  'Rome'  eventually,  and  late,  adopted 
the  venerable  feast  of  the  Conception  of  8  December  to  keep  in  line  with  the  rest  of  the  world, 
and  avoid  the  evil  note  of 'singularity'.  The  history  and  condition  of  the  Roman  monasteries  at 
the  end  of  the  tenth  century  and  early  in  the  eleventh  are  little  known.     The  recent  excavation! 

5° 


long  since  in  reference  to  the  present  question.  To  assign  '  the 
c  precise  time  and  place  where  any  given  feast  had  its  rise,  and 
c  where  rites  and  ceremonies  or  liturgical  institutions  originate,  is 

*  always   a   difficult   matter;    for    they   mostly   come   in   without 

*  observation  and  their  existence  is  commonly  not  recorded  until 
1  they  have  obtained  an  established  footing  and  have  begun  to 

*  spread.  All  that  can  usually  be  done  is  to  follow  the  way  to 
'  which  facts  seem  to  point,  and  in  the  end  a  probability,  more  or 
Mess  strong,  is  the  utmost  that  can  be  arrived  at.'1  Taking  this 
course  in  the  present  case  and  bearing  in  mind  all  the  relative 
circumstances  as  yet  ascertained,  I  think  that  the  probabilities  all 
point  in  one  direction,  namely  an  importation  into  England 
about  the  year  1030,  of  two  feasts  observed  in  Lower  Italy 
among  the  monks  of  the  Greek  revival.2 

and  recent  publication!  of  early  Roman  charters  may  throw  some  light  on  St.  Sabas;  I  can  only  refer 
to  the  narrative  in  the  Life  of  St.  Adalbert  by  John  Canaparius  Mon.  Germ.  SS.  iv  587-588  which 
icems  sufficiently  to  indicate  that  St.  Sabas  was  a  safe  home  of  Greek  ecclesiasticism.  It  would 
not  be  proper  to  pass  over  one  point.  Although  the  entries  of  the  21  November  and  8  December 
in  the  calendar  of  the  MS.  Titus  D  xxvn  seem  to  be  written  by  the  same  hand,  or  the  same  kind 
of  hand,  they  do  not  occupy  the  space  of  ordinary  entries  but  begin  in  the  left  hand  among  the 
numerals  and  appear  to  be  no  part  of  the  original  script.  In  Vitellius  E  xvm  the»e  entries  are 
part  of  the  original  script.  As  the  Titus  calendar  seems  to  date  from  about  the  years  1020-1030 
and  the  Vitellius  some  years  later  it  is  probable  that  we  have  here  an  indication  of  the  date  when 
these  feasts  were  adopted  at  Winchester. 

Of  course  any  question  as  to  the  younger  Anselm  and  his  abbacy  at  St.  Sabas  at  Rome 
(early  in  the  twelfth  century)  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of  the  original  introduction 
of  the  feasts  into  England  (see  the  Notula  printed  by  Fr.  Thurston  Eadmeri  mon.  Tract,  pp.  102- 
104,  which  was  copied  by  me  from  Harl.  MS.  1005  »o  far  back  as  the  year  1870  or  1871). 

1  Downside  Re-view  vol.  v,  p.  no;  separate  print  pp.  15-16. 

'  I  must  not  leave  this  question  without  some  observations  on  another  view  of  the  subject 
put  forth  by  the  Rev.  H.  Thurston,  of  the  Society  of  Jesus,  in  the  article  on  'The  Irish  Origins  of 
ou  Lady's  Conception  Feast'  mentioned  above  p.  44  note  (6).  The  case,  which  would  admit  of 
large  development,  presents  itself  to  me  as  if  in  a  more  just  light  somewhat  thus.  The  chief 
English  document  adduced  to  prove  the  Irish  origination  of  the  feast  of  8  December  is  con- 
tained in  the  so-called  Athelstan's  Psalter,  Cotton  MS.  Galba  A  xvm,  and  is  of  a  martyrological 
character  with  a  feast  for  every  day  of  the  year.  The  observance  of  such  a  feast  liturgically 
does  not  follow.  Of  the  presence  of  Irish  influence  in  this  metrical  martyrology  of  Galba  A  xviii 
there  can  be  no  question.  It  is  not  necessary  to  dwell  on  the  presence  of  Saint*  Aed  and  Comgan, 
Maclruen  and  Mactail;  the  entry  it  20  April  of  the  feast  of  the  'Saint*  of  Europe*  is  enough  to 

51 


In  closing  the  consideration  of  the  first  item  to  be  examined, 
I  return  to  the  imaginary  *  discourse '  from  which  we  started; 
and,  counter  to  what  is  there  supposed,  conclude  from  what  has 
been  detailed  above  as  follows: 

Given  three  calendars  of  Winchester  of  the  second  half  of 
the   eleventh   century,   one    of  which    shews   the   feasts    of   the 

orientate  us  perfectly;  this  is  a  purely  Irish  festival  and  is  included  in  that  ancient  storehouse  of 
heortological  oddities,  the  ' Marty rology  of  Oengus  the  Culdee'.  The  calendar  of  Galba  A  jcviii 
icems  to  me  to  date  from  about  the  days  of  Athclstan's  childhood  not  of  his  regality.  The 
entry  of  the  Conception  on  2  May  ('  Concipitur  virgo  Maria  cognomine  senis'i.  e.  6  non.  Maii,) 
is  derived  from  the  same  Irish  martyrological  tradition  as  the  feast  of  the  'Saints  of  Europe'. 
Oengus,  who  gives  other  commcmoiations  of  the  bleised  Virgin  not  known  elsewhere  in  Europe 
has  one  at  2  May  and  signalizes  it  as  'the  great  feast  of  Mary*  but  says  nothing  of  the 
Conception;   and  he  has  no  feast  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  in  December. 

I  venture  to  think  that  the  truer  interpretation  of  this  Irish  May  feast  of  Mary  ,which  dates 
at  least  from  the  eighth  century,  is  rather  of  this  kind:  that  we  are  here  in  presence  of  an  'early 
anticipation'  of  the  May  'm  mth  of  Mary'  of  later  centuries  produced  (if  I  rightly  enter  into 
the  spirit  of  Irish  religion  as  displayed  in  the  genuine  records  of  the  seventh  and  eighth  centuries) 
on  the  soil  then  most  fitted  for  it.  Not  indeed  that  I  would  suggest  any  actual  and  historical 
connection  between  this  Irish  May  least  of  Mary  and  the  'Month  of  Mary'  of  later  piety  and 
other  lands.  But  given  the  like  sort  of  tempers,  and  kind  of  religiousness,  we  may  not  be  surprised 
at  similar  results.  It  is  in  vain  that  Marian  feasts  are  accumulated  in  the  official  Calendar  of  the 
Universal  Church  on  the  fall  of  the  year,  September  and  October,  or  that  to  the  late  Pontiff 
Leo  XIII  it  seemed  well  to  consecrate  every  day  of  the  latter  month  to  public  Marian  devotion. 
Popular  instinct  runs  its  own  way  and  by  its  own  will  in  such  matters  as  this, in  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries  as  in  the  seventh  and  eighth,  and  fixes  on  the  times  which  it  is  naturally 
prompted  to  observe.  Though  a  traditional  respect  seems  still  to  guide  authority  in  keeping  the 
great  Pentecostal  time  which  follows  Easter  free  from  accumulation  of  Marian  feasts,  popular 
instinct  makes  Mary's  month  to  be  now  the  month  of  May  just  as  the  Irish  in  the  seventh  or 
eighth  century  inaugurated  that  month  of  spring  time  with  a  'great  feast  of  Mary'  unknown  to 
the  rest  of  the  Western  world. 

On  a  full  review  it  seems  to  me  that  I  should  not  be  following  the  way  to  which  facts  seem 
to'point  were  I  to  attribute  the  origination  of  the  feast  of  the  Conception  of  8  December  in  the 
Winchester,  Canterbury,  and  other  English  books  of  the  eleventh  century  to  Irish  influence 
as  exemplified  on  2  May  in  the  metrical  martyrology  of  Athclstan's  days;  and  that  the  facts  lead 
us  rather  to  attribute  the  origination  in  England  of  the  feast  of  8  December  and  that  of  21 
November,  neither  of  them  found  in  the  Irish  documents,  to  Greek  influences  in  Southern  Italy. 

I  am  therefore  unable,  at  least  at  present,  to  follow  Fr.  Thurston  in  his  views  on  the  subject 
under  discussion;  including  the  suggested  Irish  borrowing  from  Coptic  sources,  etc. 

The  slight  shifting  of  the  feast  from  9  to  8  December  seems  easily  explicable  by  the  date  of 
feast  of  the  Nativity,  8th  September. 

5« 


Conception  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  at  8  December  and  of  the 
Oblation  at  2 1  November,  whilst  the  other  two  calendars  do  not, 
the  presumption,  in  face  of  the  ascertained  facts,  is  that  the  former 
would  date  from  before,  the  two  latter  from  some  time  after,  the 
Norman  Conquest.1 

6.  OF  FEASTS  OF  BRETON  SAINTS  AS  FOUND  IN 
THE  THREE  CALENDARS 

The  following  is  a  table  of  Breton  (and  Cornish)  saints  as  found 
in  the  three  calendars: 

Arundel  155         Arundel  60  Vitellius  E  xvin 

19  Jan.            Branwalator  conf. 

2  June           Petrock  Petrock 

28  July  Samson  Samson                      

15  Nov.         Machlonus  Machlonus 

Judoc  may  be  a  cult  borrowed  by  Winchester  not  from  Brittany 
but  from  Ponthieu,  and  its  introduction  into  the  Winchester 
calendars  may  belong  to  another  part  of  their  history.  This  is 
also  the  case  with  Samson  whose  name  occurs  in  the  so-called 
Metrical  Martyrology  of  Bede,  and  the  Metrical  Martyrology, 
or  calendar,  of  Galba  A  xvin. 

There  remain  the  Bretons  Branwalator  and  Machlonus  (i.  e. 
Machutus,  St.  Malo),  and  Petrock  of  Cornwall.  To  what  period 
are  we  to  assign  such  infusion  of  Breton  and  Cornish  elements 
into  the  calendar  of  the  church  of  Winchester?  Is  it  pre-Con- 
quest? Is  it  post-Conquest?  Branwalator  excites  a  more  particular 

1  The  reintroduction  of  the  feast  of  the  Conception  at  Winchester  took  place  some  time 
before  the  writing  of  the  missal  now  at  Havre,  assigned  byM.  Delisle  to  about  'the  year  Ii20f 
Both  the  feast  of  the  Conception  and  that  of  the  Oblation  were  revived  at  Canterbury  seem- 
ingly in  the  second  half  of  the  twelfth  century.  They  are  not  given  in  the  original  script  of 
the  MS.  Bodl.  Add.  C  260  (as  to  which  see  list  of  MSS.  below);  but  both  are  found  in  the 
calendar  of  the  Eadwine  psalter  at  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  written  before  the  martyrdom 
of  St.  Thomas  in  1170.  I  say  'seemingly'  because  it  is  not  always  possible  to  view  the  calendar 
of  a  psalter  of  that  date  as  reliable  evidence  of  practice;  these  entries  may  perhaps  only 
mark  the  rising  tide  of  individual  piety  that  precedes  formal  and  liturgical  recognition.  Of 
course  the  Oblatio  of  21  Nov.  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  books  is  an  early  anticipation  of  the  feast  of 
the  Presentation  on  that  day  which  became  common  in  the  later  Middle  Ages  (for  which  see 
F.  G.  Hoi  week,  Festi  Mariani,  Freiburg,  Herder,  1892,  pp.  267-269). 

53 


curiosity.  But  this  name  at  once  suggests  king  Athelstan,  the 
foundation  of  Middleton  in  Dorsetshire,  and  the  relics  he  gave 
to  that  house:  '  an  arm  and  many  bones  of  Saint  Samson  the 
'archbishop,  the  arm  of  St.  Branwalader  bishop',  besides  a  relic 
of  the  Holy  Cross  and  many  other  relics  in  five  reliquaries. 
'All  these  relics,  bought  with  a  great  expenditure  of  treasure 
'from  the  holy  Roman  church,  from  Britain  over  sea,  and  from 
'  many  other  places,  the  aforesaid  king  Athelstan  gave  to  his 
'  monastery  of  Middleton  '  etc.1  But  how  did  Athelstan  get 
these  things  from  Britain  over  the  seas?  Just  here  a  local  issue, 
the  Barnstaple  Holy  Trinity  Parish  Magazine  for  July  1907,  comes 
opportunely  to  hand.  It  gives  information  which  I  do  not  know 
how  to  find  elsewhere,  as  follows:  8 

1  About  3 50  years  after  their  arrival  [i.  e.  of  the  expulsed 
Britons  in  Brittany  in  the  sixth  century]  it  is  noteworthy 
that  a  similar  cause  compelled  many  of  these  British  exiles 
to  take  refuge  in  their  ancestral  home.  In  Merlet's 
edition  of  the  Chronicle  of  Nantes  (Paris  1896)  we  find 
the  following  entry:  "At  this  time  (that  is  when  the 
Northmen  were  ravaging  Brittany)  Mathuedoi,  Count 
of  Poher,  took  flight  to  the  English  king  iEthelstan 
{Adelstaii)  with  a  great  multitude  of  Britons,  together 
with  his  son  Alain — afterwards  called  Twisted-beard 
{Barha-tortd) — to  whom  the  same  English  king  iEthelstan 

1  Monasticon  11,  pp.  349-350.  It  is  a  pity  that  an  *  Exuviae  Sacrae  Anglicanae'  say  up  to 
1200  has  never  been  undertaken;  but  then  a  first  requirement  is  a  scholarship  of  the  kind  and 
measure  that  distingushed  the  work  of  the  late  Conate  Paul  Riant.  Even  a  more  modest  under- 
taking—  a'Reliquiae  Athehtanianae' — would  be  of  unsuspected  use  for  illustrating  the  history  of 
England  in  the  first  half  of  the  tenth  century.  We  might  then  hope  to  be  told  how,  for  instance, 
the  precious  Cotton  MS.  Tiberius  A  ti,  the  Gospel  book  given  by  Athelstan  to  Christ  Church 
Canterbury,  was  a  product  of  the  school  of  Lobbes  when  that  place  was  inhabited  by  some  of  the 
most  interesting  persons  in  Europe;  or  why  Athelstan  while  calling  himself  'anglorum  basyleos  * 
should  also  designate  himself  'curagulus  totius  bryttannie ' — a  point  not  cleared  up  in  such 
voluminous  discussions  as  those  in  the  late  Professor  Freeman's  Norman  Conquest. 

*  The  extract  here  given  occurs  in  a  series  of  articles  (in  the  smaller  print  and  delightful  to 
find)  entitled  '  British  Place  Names  in  their  Historical  Bearing.  By  Edmund  McClure,  M.  A.'  I 
am  unable  to  cite  the  publication  in  which  these  articles  appear  under  any  other  title  than  that 
given  in  the  text;  but  at  the  last  moment  ice  that  an  article  on  these  inscriptions  is  to  be  found  in 
the  forthcoming  October  number  of  the  English  Historical  Review. 

54 


had  been  sponsor  at  the  font,  and  whom  on  account  of 
the  association  and  friendship  of  this  new  birth,  he  held 
in  great  trust."  This  occurred  in  the  year  931,  six  years 
before  iEthelstan  gained  his  great  victory  at  Brunanburh 
over  the  Danes  and  their  allies.  There  is,  in  my  opinion, 
an  unexpected  light  thrown  on  this  record  by  certain 
ancient  inscribed  stones  preserved  in  the  church  of  Saint 
Mary  at  Wareham  (Dorset),  where  the  exiles  may  have 
found  a  refuge.  I  have  made  careful  copies  of  these 
fragmentary  inscriptions,  which  are  all  seemingly  of  the 
tenth  century,  and  put  them  together  here  for  reference. 

1  Built  into  the  wall  of  the  north  aisle  are  two  incised 
slabs,  the  first  reading  CATGUG[-]C  FILIUS 
GIDEO,  and  the  second  GONGDRIE.  A  pillar, 
of  which  the  top  is  broken  off,  now  in  a  side  chapel,  has 
the  remains  of  two  names, — ENIEL-F — UPRIT'I; 
and,  on  a  fragment  of  a  column,  IUDN[OI] — TCI  VI. 
There  is  also  in  the  porch  a  fragment  of  a  slab  with  the 
following  inscription  of  a  much  earlier  form: — VISCV — 
FILIVS  VI — .It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  a  colony  of 
native  British  Christians  could  have  been  living  peaceably 
at  Wareham  at  this  period,  a  place  which  had  in  Alfred 
the  Great's  time  (877)  been  a  great  stronghold  of  the 
Northmen.  Coupling  the  date  of  the  form  of  the  letters 
in  the  inscriptions  with  the  entry  in  the  Nantes  Chronicle^ 
these  records  seem  to  point  to  Wareham  as  one  of  the 
refuges  of  the  exiles  from  Brittany  mentioned  by  the 
chronicler.' 
Mr.  McClure  gives  in  a  note  parallelisms  drawn  from  the  cartu- 
lary of  Redon  and  other  sources  to  the  names  recorded  in  the 
Wareham  inscriptions;    and  adds:    '  It  is  a   somewhat    singular 

*  coincidence  that  the  Salisbury  Cathedral  Library  has  a  Psalter 
'of  the  tenth  century  [the  Salisbury  MS.  150  often  cited  in  this 

*  tract]  containing  a  Litany  with  numerous  invocations  of  Breton 

*  saints,  and  this  may  well  have  been  brought  by  the  exiles.'     I 

*  gladly  here  go  a  little  further  forward  on  the  line  of  enquiry  thus 
suggested  by  Mr.  McClure;1  for  this  Breton  immigration  is  proper 

1  For  Athclstan's  later  interest  in  the  efforts  of    these  Bretons  to   recover  their  native  land 
see  the  further  passage  in  the  Nantes  Chronicle,  Bouquet  vm.  p.  270;  and  cf.  Flodoard  ibid.  p.  190. 

ss 


to  explain  the  Breton  entries  in  the  Winchester  calendars  now  under 
discussion.     These  Breton  saints  do   not   occur  in   the  Metrical 
Martyrology  of  Galba  A  xvm.     But  later  Winchester  documents 
witness    to   a    veritable    devotional  furore    in    Bretonism.     The 
Cotton  MS.  Galba  A  xiv,  a  Winchester  prayer  book  of  thetenth  and 
eleventh  centuries,  of  which  a  brief  account  is  given  in  the.  Downside 
Review,  vol.  xxvi  p.  58  seqq.,  affords  us  a  glimpse  of  the  devotion 
to  Breton  saints  current  at  that  time  among  ladies  of  the  higher 
and  educated  classes  from  among  which  St.  Mary's  nunnery  at 
Winchester  must  at  that  time  have  been  recruited.     In  one  of  the 
litanies  in  this  book,  ff.  93b-94a, comes  a  group  of  invocations  thus: 
1  branwaladre,  canidir  (?),  santfrit  (?),  siloc,  triohoc  (?lioc),  tula, 
twioric,  geroce,  cherane'-  The  MS.  is  much  burnt  and  the  names 
may  be  to  some  extent  misread;  but  here  it   is  enough  to  have 
called  attention  to  their  presence.      In  another  litany  of  the  same 
volume,  f.  77b,  St.  Machutus  is  invoked  among  the  sainted  bishops 
of  Winchester.     This  was  not  accidental  but  premeditated;  we 
can   get  a  glimpse  of  the  way  in  which  Machutus  came  to  be 
considered  by  Winchester  people  as   one  of  their  own  prelates 
from    the  burnt  Cotton    MS.  Otho  A  vm   in   which  the  life  of 
St.  Machutus  bore  (as  appears  from  the  old  Catalogue)  the  title 
4  Vita  S.  Machuti  episcopi  Ventani '.    The  very  personal  character 
of  the  cult  rendered  to  him  in  Winchester  is  evidenced  by  a  pretty 
little  versified  prayer  of  a  nun  contained  in  the  Galba  MS.  already 
cited,  and  printed  in  the  Downside  Review  (ubi  supra).  I  have  no 
doubt  that  with  proper  research  more  material  of  the  same  kind 
may  easily  be  found. 

But  what  has  been  already  said  is  sufficient  for  the  present 
purpose;  namely,  to  shew  that  the  presence  of  the  distinctly 
Breton  element  in  the  Winchester  calendars  of  the  eleventh 
century  is  probably  due  to  Athelstan  and  that  the  Breton  cults  at 
Winchester  date  from  his  reign.1  Any  words  on  the  case  of 
St.  Petrock  and  Athelstan's  reduction  of  Cornwall  are  doubtless 
unnecessary  here. 

1  Judoc  ii  not  found  in  the  metrical  martyrology  of  Galba  A  xvm,  but  the  entry  in  the 
tenth  century  Salisbury  MS.  150  at  9  January  'sci  Edoci  conf.'  is  doubtless  intended  for  him  as 
well  as  the  'Judoci  conf.'  at  13  December;  in  the  Sherborne  calendar  of  the  eleventh  century 
(of  which  below)  both  entries  are  found  and  the  feast  of    9  January  is  marked  with  the  *V 

56 


Reverting,  then,  to  the  ' discourse'  from  which  we  started,  we 
find  on  this  second  count  also,  the  Breton  and  Cornish  saints, 
the  presumption  is  that  the  calendar  in  which  such  cults  are 
more  marked  would  date  from  before,  the  calendars  in  which 
they  are  less  marked  or  absent,  more  probably  from  some  time 
after,  the  Norman  Conquest. 

7.  RELIC  CULTS:  CANTERBURY  OR  WINCHESTER? 

We  have  considered  two  items  of  internal  evidence  in  their 
bearing  on  the  probable  date  of  the  three  calendars.  The  item 
now  to  be  considered  bears  on  the  question  of  place,  and  to  which 
church,  whether  Winchester  or  Canterbury,  each  may  respectively 
belong. 

From  the  excerpt  from  Eadmer's  tract  on  the  relics  of  St. 
Audoen  given  by  Gervase  in  his  account  of  the  fire  at  Canterbury 
cathedral  in  11 74  we  learn  that  before  the  Conquest  in  the  old 
cathedral  of  Anglo-Saxon  times: 

(1)  the  head  of  St.  Fursey  was  kept  at  the  altar  in  the  crypt, 
or  Confession,  under  the  high  altar; 

(2)  the  head  of  St.  Austroberta  at  the  altar  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin; 

(3)  the  head  of  St.  Swithun,  given  by  St.  Elphege,  at  the  altar 
of  the  daily  (?  community)  mass  in  front  of  the  high  altar; 

(4)  the  body  of  St.  Wilfrid,  given  by  St.  Odo,  at  the  high 
altar ; 

(5)  Professor  Willis  (Architectural  History  of  Canterbury  Cathe- 
dral pp.  4-5)  has  briefly  noticed,  from  Eadmer's  MS.,  how  the 
relics  of  St.  Audoen  were  said  to  have  been  deposited  in  Canterbury 
cathedral  in  the  days  of  king  Edgar  and  archbishop  Odo. 

It  is  to  be  understood  that  in  the  tract  on  the  relics  of 
St.  Audoen  Eadmer  does  not  profess  to  give  a  complete  list  of 
relics  preserved  in  the  cathedral  before  the  Conquest,  but  only 
mentions  such  relics  as  occur  to  him  as  illustrative  of  his  descrip- 

designating  in  this  MS.  feasts  of  higher  grade. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  how  the  series  of  Breton  invocations  in  the  litany  of  the  Galba 

MS.  A  xiv   is   (except   Branwalator)   different   from  the  series  in  the  Breton  litany  of  the  tenth 

century    printed    by  Mabillon  under  the  unfortunate  title  'Veteres   Litaniae  Anglicanae',  and 

mistakenly  dated  by  him  two  or  three  centuries  earlier. 
G 

SI 


tion  of  the  pre-Norman  church;  moreover  all  that  is  in  question 
here  is  the  existence  of  a  cult;  its  origin  is  not  our  concern,  and 
still  less  the  origin  of  the  relics. 

In  the  Benedictional  of  the  cathedral  Harl.  MS.  2892  already 
cited  we  find  benedictions  for  the  feasts  of  St.  Blase  (f.  139*),  St. 
Austroberta  (f.  i40b),  St.  Salvius  (f.  1  S9%  St-  Audoen  (i70b).x 
We  have  already  seen  above  (pp.  35-36)  that  the  special  cult  of 
St.  Salvius  dates  in  Canterbury  cathedral  from  two  generations  at 
least  before  the  Conquest.  As  to  St.  Blase,  Gervase  (Twysden, 
Decern  Scr.  col.  1293)  mentions  an  altar  of  St.  Blase  as  existing  in 
the  cathedral  built  by  Lanfranc;  and  from  the  later  inventories 
we  learn  that  the  4  body'  of  St.  Blase  was  kept  in  a  shrine  behind 
the  high  altar;  his  head  and  arm  in  a  silver  gilt  head  and  arm 
in  the  treasury  (Dart,  Hist,  of  the  Cathedral  Ch.  of  Canterbury, 
Appendix  p.  xlii).  As  there  is  a  benediction  for  the  feast  in  the 
Benedictioi.al  cited  above  it  may  be  safely  concluded  that  a  relic 
cult  of  St.  Blase  existed  in  the  cathedral  before  the  Conquest 
quite  independently  of  the  wave  of  later  devotion  which  spread 
throughout  the  churches  of  Western  Europe  and  became  generally 
fashionable  in  the  twelfth  century. 

Of  the  saints  mentioned  above,  SS.  Swithun,  Wilfrid  and 
Audoen  are  commonly  found  in  the  calendars  of  the  eleventh 
century;  and  the  occurrence  of  these  names  is  not  of  significance 
for  the  present  purpose. 

There  remain  four  names:  Fursey,  Blase,  Austroberta,  Salvius. 
In  the  following  table  an  asterisk  (*)  indicates  presence,  a  dash  ( — ) 
absence.  The  following  is  the  state  of  the  case  in  our  three 
calendars,  to  which  for  illustration  is  added  the  witness  of  the 
Canterbury  Benedictional  of  the  eleventh  century,  a  Canterbury 
cathedral  calendar  certainly  earlier  than  the  martydom  of  St. 
Thomas  and  probably  of  some  time  between  the  years  1 150-1 170 

1  It  is  I  think  to  be  regretteJ  that  this  MS.  should  not  have  been  selected  for  publication  by 
the  Henry  Brad-haw  Society  instead  of  the  so-called  Benedictional  of  Robert  of  Jumieges.  It 
has  the  advantage,  or  disadvantage,  of  being  practically  unknown  and  unused,  whilst  the  latter 
book  has  been  known  through  French  scholars  for  the  past  two  hundred  years.  But  our  Harlcian 
MS.  preserves  some  of  the  rites  of  the  most  venerable  church  in  England  before  Lanfranc's 
reformation  and  gi»es  us  some  idea,  in  Its  numerous  original  formularies,  of  the  tone  of  mind  and 
piety  of  the  old  community  of  Canterbury  cathedral. 

58 


(MS.  Bodl.  Add.  C.  260),  and  of  the  calendar  of  St.  Augustine's 
already  used. 

Canterbury   documents  Winchester  documents 

anterior  to  the  Conquest 


Bosw.  Ps.  Harl.  2892  Vit.Exvm  Arund.  60 
Jan.  1 6  Fursey          *             —                          —  — 

Feb.  3  Blase  —  *  —  

"   10  Austroberta —  *  —  — 

June  26  Salvius        *  *  —  — 

Arund.  155     Canterbury  Cath.  St.  Augustine's 

(c.  1 1 50-1 170)  (c.  1 250-1 270) 
Bodl.  Add  C  2  60. x 

Jan.  1 6  Fursey               —                        *  — 

Feb.  3  Blase                   *                         *  * 

"   10  Austroberta        *                          *  — 

June  26  Salvius               *                          *  — 

From  this  table  it  seems  possible  to  draw  only  one  conclusion; 
namely  that  the  calendar  of  Arundel  MS.  155  dissociates  itself 
from  the  Winchester,  associates  itself  with  the  Canterbury 
cathedral,   traditions  and   cults. 

8.  THE  EXTENSION  OF  FEASTS  PROPER  TO  WIN- 
CHESTER 

In  the  'discourse'  imagined  above,  the  argument  decisive  for  the 
assignment  to  Winchester  of  the  calendar  in  Arundel  MS.  155 
is  simple:  this  calendar  shews  five  local  feasts  of  Winchester  and 
but  two  (Augustine  and  Elphege)  of  Canterbury;  ergo.  Such 
an  argument  would  be  plausible;  will  it  bear  examination? 

As  the  simplest  way  for  coming  to  a  conclusion  on  this 
question,  let  us  divide  the  case  into  two  parts  and  consider  each 
on  its  own  merits.     We  have  then  to  enquire: 

1  Or  the  Eadwine  Psalter  of  the  same  age.  In  MS.  Bodl.  the  name  of  Fursey  is  entered  in 
capital  letters.  This  may  be  mere  scribal  caprice;  or  it  may  mark  a  temporary  revival  of  interest 
in  the  cult,  through  some  little  event,  or  private  gust,  of  which  we  are  ignorant. 

59 


I.  Whether  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  church  of  the  eleventh 
century  specifically  Winchester  feasts  were  or  were  not  freely 
adopted  elsewhere;1 

II.  Whether  there  is  reason  to  anticipate  that  a  calendar  for 
Canterbury  cathedral  drawn  up  under  the  direction  of  Lanfranc 
would  contain  few  local  Canterbury  feasts  rather  than  many. 

I.  To  satisfy  ourselves  under  the  first  head  it  will  be  sufficient 
for  the  present  purpose  to  give  a  list  of  the  specifically  Winchester 
feasts  in  Vitellius  E  xvin  and  see  how  many  of  these  occur  in 
three  or  four  select  calendars  of  Anglo-Saxon  times. 

The  list  of  such  feasts  in  Vitellius  E  xvin  is  as  follows: 

(i)  Jan.  9  Translation  of  St.  Judoc  cf;  (2)  March  12 
St.  Elphege  bp;  (3)  June  15  St.  Eadburga  v;  (4)  July  2 
Deposition  of  St.  Swithun  bp;  (5)  July  7  St.  Hedda  bp; 
(6)  July  8  St.  Grimbald  cf;  (7)  July  15  Translation  of 
St.  Swithun;  (8)  Aug.  1  St.  Ethelwold  bp;  (9)  Sept.  4 
Translation  of  SS.  Birinus  and  Cuthbert;  (10)  Sept.  10 
Translation  of  St.  Ethelwold;  (n)  Oct.  18  St.  Justus  m. 
(12)  Oct.  30  Ordination  of  St.  Swithun;  (13)  Nov.  4 
St.  Birnstan  bp;  (14)  Dec.  3  Deposition  of  St.  Birinus;. 
(15)  Dec.  10  Octave  of  St.  Birinus;  (16)  Dec.  13 
St.   Judoc   cf.2 

In  selecting  calendars  for  comparison  three  points  have  been 
borne  in  mind;  certainty  as  to  their  local  origin,  their  geographical 
distribution,  and  their  character  as  products  of  Anglo-Saxon  tradition 
and  not  of  the  Norman,  or  earlier  'Lotharingian',  reform.  Those 
chosen  are:  (a)  the  calendar  in  the  C.C. C. C.  MS.  422  commonly 

1  The  question  whether  other  churches  adopted  the  calendar  of  the  church  of  Winchester 
in  Anglo-Saxon  times  is  quite  a  different  matter:  the  answer  to  this  question  must  (unless  the 
St.  Edmundsbury  calendar  in  MS.  Vat.  Reg.  12  form  an  exception)  be  in  the  negative. 

•  Not  2  and  15  are  not  found  in  the  (Newminstcr)  calendar  of  Titus  D  xxvu.  I  exclude 
July  18  Eadburga  (see  p.  41  above);  in  Titus  D  xxvn  this  fea;t  it  entered  as  'Translatio  Scae 
Eadburgae  virg:';  it  may  be  of  the  Winchester  nun,  but  I  do  not  know;  Oct.  23  St.  Ethelfleda  it 
alto  excluded  as  being  of  Romtey  and  not  tpecifically  of  Winchester. 

6C 


called  the  f  Red  Book  of  Derby  '.  This  calendar  can  with  practical 
certainty  be  assigned  to  Sherborne; x  (b)  the  calendar  of  C.  C.  C.  C. 
MS.  391  commonly  called  the  c  Portiforium  S.  Oswaldi ',  a  breviary 
of  the  church  of  Worcester  under  St.  Wulstan;  (c)  the  calendar 

1  As  this  Sherborne  calendar  and  the  calendar  of  the  Bosworth  Psalter  are  the  only  ones 
extant  which  can  be  shewn  to  derive  ultimately  from  the  ancient  Glastonbury  calendar  represented 
now  only  by  G,  some  particulars  are  here  given  respecting  it.  The  greater  feasts  in  the  calendar 
of  C.C  C  C.  MS.  422  are  designated,  not  by  a  cross  as  in  most  others  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  period 
but  by  the  letter  '  f  in  red  towards  the  right  hand  margin  of  the  page.  The  colour  has  flaked 
off  but  the  letters  are  still  in  every  case  discernible.  Among  the  feasts  so  distinguished  are  these: 
Jan.  8  'Sancti  Wulfsini  SCIREBURNENSIS  episcopi'  [this  is  the  only  Anglo-Saxon  calendar 
in  which  the  name  of  Wulfsin  is  found;  he  occurs  at  this  day  in  the  Exeter  martyrology  of  the 
eleventh  century,  which  has  further  at  27  April  this  entry  (taken  from  Henry  Wharton's  extracts 
at  Lambeth):  'Translatio  S.Wlfsini  episcopi  et  confessoris  cuius  merita  testatur  numerositas  mira- 
culorum  divini  bcneficii';  see  also  the  late  Fr.  R.Stanton's  Menology  p.  11]  ;  Mar.  18  St.  Edward  k. 
and  martyr,  the  entry  is  in  capitals ;  Sept.  1 6  St.  Edith,  also  in  capitals.  At  Aug.  1 2  occurs  (but  not 
distinguished  by  the  letter  'f  )  'Translatio  sancti  Eadwoldi  anchoritae'  (i.e.  the  hermit  of  Cerne),  a 
commemoration  again  not  found  in  any  other  Anglo-Saxon  calendar.  There  is  no  mention  by  the 
original  hand  of  St.  Aldhelm;  but,  though  his  name  is  found  in  the  Salisbury  MS.  150,  and  in  B, 
his  cult  was  insignificant  in  Anglo-Saxon  days.  It  seems  then  practically  certain  that  we  have 
here  a  calendar  of  Sherborne. 

This  calendar  is  wholly  rooted  in  precedents  of  Anglo-Saxon  times  and  quite  free  from  admix- 
ture of  foreign  elements  that  might  have  come  in  under  the  so-called  'Lorrainer'  bishop  Herman 
{1058-1078).  The  calendar  in  Cotton  MS.  Vitellius  A  xviii  is  a  specimen  of  this  new  type, 
whether  originating  with  Herman,  or  more  probably  his  neighbour  Giso  of  Wells  (1061-1088). 

The  calendar  in  the  'Red  Book  of  Derby'  deserves  an  accurate  and  detailed  examination 
for  which  this  is  not  the  place.  It  may  however  be  said  that  it  retains  items  of  G  that  have 
disappeared  in  B;  moreover  in  every  case  where  it  agrees  with  B  as  against  G,  it  also  is  in  agree- 
ment with  the  Winchester  calendar  Vitellius  E  xviii;  and  in  no  case  is  the  direct  influence  of 
B  on  Sh.  demonstrable.  Moreover  Sherborne  has  some  items  which  can  be  found  only  in  other 
and  the  more  ancient  members'of  the  'western  group'  of  calendars,  the  Salisbury  MS.  150  and 
Cotton  MS.  Nero  A  11. 

Besides  Judoc  on  Jan.  9  (see  p. 56  n.i)  and  those  mentioned  above,  the  following  items 
marked  with  *f '  deserve  notice:  Cuthbert,  Gregory,  and  Benedict  in  March;  April  19  and  23 
Elphege  and  George;  May  19  and  26  Dunstan  and  Augustine;  and  Nov.  23  Clement.  SS.  Swithun, 
Grimbald  and  Benedict,  all  in  July,  have  not  this  distinguishing  mark  of  grade  although  in  all 
three  cases  capitals  are  used  as  if  the  scribe  had  here  a  Winchester  calendar  before  him.  Olave  is 
entered  as  secondary  at  June  28  (for  St.  Olave  at  Exeter  see  p.  48  n.  2  above).  At  Oct.  21  is  this 
entry:  'Hie  ordinatus  fuit  Dunstanus  archiepiscopus'  (the  so-called  '  Portiforium  S.  Oswaldi'  has 
also  at  Oct.  21  'Ordinatio  Sci  Dunstani  archiepi ',  but  this  is  an  entry  by  a  later  hand). 

What  gives  particular  interest  to  the  Sherborne  calendar  is  this:  that  Wulfoy  or  Wulfsin 

6l 


in  MS.  Bodl.  Douce  296,  of  some  monastery  in  the  fen  country. 

(a)  The  Sherborne  calendar  contains  Nos  1,  3,  4,  6,  7,  8,  9, 
10,  11,  14  and  16  of  the  list  given  above. 

(b)  The  Worcester  calendar  contains  Nos  I,  3,  4,  7,  8,  9,  11, 
14  and  16. 

(c)  The  calendar  of  the  monastery  of  the  fen  country  contains 

N01  3,  4,  5>  6>  7,  8>  IO>  IJ   14,  and  16. 

In  these  circumstances  the  presence  of  five  local  Winchester 
feasts  (Nus  4,  7,  9,  14,  16)  in  the  calendar  of  MS.  Arundel  155 
is  not  of  itself  an  argument  that  it  is  a  calendar  of  the  church  of 
Winchester;  especially  as  the  calendar  B  of  Canterbury  cathedral 
of  the  early  years  seemingly  of  the  eleventh  century  shews  already 
four  local  Winchester  feasts  (Nos  3,  4,  6,  7). 

It  is  the  free  adoption  by  other  churches  of  local  Winchester 
feasts  in  the  eleventh  century  which  is  the  cause  in  the  past  of  the 
assignment  to  Winchester  of  calendars  which,  when  fully  con- 
sidered and  examined  in  their  various  constituent  elements,  appear 
not  only  to  be  not  calendars  of  Winchester  but  also  to  follow  a 
different  tradition  and  to  rest  on  a  different  basis.  So  far  as  we 
may  judge  from  the  very  few  calendars  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  period 
that  survive  out  of  the  great  number  that  once  existed,  the  spread 
of  Winchester  feasts  seems  to  have  begun  in  the  later  decades  of 
the  tenth  century  and  to  have  been  a  consequence  of  that  great 
awakening  to  a  sense  of  national  unity  that  marked  king  Edgar's 
days.  G  has  no  Winchester  saint.  The  Salisbury  MS.  150  has 
N°\  1,  3,  4  (as  a  ' Translation  '),  6  and  14  in  the  list;  Nero  A  11, 
Nos.  6,  9  (but  at  Sept.  2),  14  and  16.  These  two  calendars  thus 
rank  themselves  with  B  and  shew  the  stage  reached  about  the 
year  1000;  the  three  calendars  reviewed  above  shew  the  state  of 
things  some  two  generations  later.  The  feast  of  the  Ordination 
of  St.  Swithun  (N°.  12)  is  found  (besides  Vitellius  E  xviii)  only 
in  the  calendar  of  the  missal  of  Robert  of  Jumieges,  and  that  of 

(who  seems  to  have  been  bishop  992-1001)  was  abbat  of  Westminister  in  the  obscure  beginning* 
of  that  house;  and  those  beginnings  seem  to  have  been  connected  with  St.  Dunstan  who  is  reported 
to  have  been  responsible  for  Wulfsy's  appointment  to  the  new  foundation.  We  are  dealing  here 
with  obscure  memories  and  can  reach  them  only  through  a  haze  of  legend;  but  the  Sherborne 
calendar  of  the  'Red  Book  of  Derby'  seems  proper  to  shew  that  the  story  as  told  is  not  so  very 
far  orf  from  fact. 

62 


Bodleian  MS.  Junius  99  commonly  assigned  to  Worcester  under 

St.  Wulstan. 

II.  There  remains  the  question  whether  there  is  reason  to 

anticipate   in  a  calendar   drawn   up   for  the  cathedral  church   of 

Canterbury   under   Lanfranc   the   presence   of  many   or   of  few 

Canterbury  saints. 

Fortunately  we  are  in  a  position  to  know  what  we  are  to 

think   in   this   matter;   and   on   authority   no   less   than   that  of 

Lanfranc  himself  in  the  Constitutions  which  he  drew  up  expressly 
for  observance  by  his  own  community  of  the  Canterbury  cathe- 
dral monastery.1  These  Constitutions  are  also  of  interest  as  the 
first  recorded,  perhaps  the  first  actual,  attempt  in  England  at 
drawing  up  a  regular  scheme  of  strictly  graded  feasts  to  each  of 
which  a  value  was  assigned  after  the  modern  manner.  Lanfranc's 
scheme  of  grading  was  as  follows:  principal  feasts,  five  only  in 
number  (Christmas  etc.);  secondly  about  a  score  of  feasts  truly 
*  magnificent 'but  still  not  of  such  consideration  as  the  supreme  five; 
feasts  of  the  third  grade,  sixteen  in  number  and  including  the 
majority  of  the  feasts  of  apostles.  Then  come  feasts  of  'twelve 
lessons',  feasts  of  'three  lessons',  and  mere  'commemorations'; 
these  inferior  celebrations  are  not  specified  by  name;  but  they 
embraced  in  fact  (as  we  can  gather  from  the  lists  of  feasts  of  the  first 
three  grades)  the  bulk  of  the  feasts  designated  above  as  'sacra- 
mentary  '  feasts,  with  a  few  '  martyrological '  and  '  foreign  '  and 
some  that  were  locally  'principal'  in  other  English  churches3. 

In  the  enumeration  of  feasts  thus  prescribed  by  Lanfranc  for 
celebration  in  his  cathedral  church  of  Canterbury  we  find  the 
names  of  two  only  out  of  the  many  Canterbury  saints  whose 
cult  had  become  traditional  in  the  primatial  church  of  the  English 
people.  These  two  are  St.  Augustine  and  St.  Elphege.  Of  St. 
Dunstan,    still    after    the   martyrdom  of  St.  Elphege  the  most 

1  By  a  mischance  these  were  printed  by  the  first  editor  under  the  title  '  Decreta  Lanfranci  pro 
Ordine  S.  Benedicti'  (see  Reyner'i  Apostolatus  Benedictinorum,  part  iii,  p.  211);  and  our  antiquariet 
etc.  thus  started  on  a  wrong  track  have  generally  persevered  therein  until  now  (see  e.g.  the 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography  under  '  Lanfranc '),  although  in  the  Concilia  Wilkins  pointed  to 
the  real  state  of  the  case  which  is  indeed  made  clear  in  Lanfranc'i  own  preface. 

*  Lanfranc's  list  of  feasts  will  be  found  in  6  10  before  the  Table. 


63 


venerated  perhaps  of  them  all,1  we  find  not  a  word. 

Viewed  in  the  light  of  the  facts  the  argument  concluding  to  a 
Winchester  origin  from  the  presence  in  Arundel  MS.  155  of  five 
local  Winchester  and  but  two  local  Canterbury  feasts  is  invalid. 

9.  CONCLUSION 

Other  points  of  minor  detail  invite  discussion;  suchas  the  feasts 
of  St.  Audoen2  and  St.  Bartholemew;  the  names  of  the  saints 
entered  in  various  MSS.  by  later  hands  but  never  admitted  into 
the  official  calendar  of  Canterbury  cathedral;  or  topics  of  more 
general  concern,  as,  for  instance,  the  difficulty  and  uncertainty 
attending  the  dating  of  MSS.  of  this  period  on  paleographical 
grounds  only  to  the  neglect  of  internal  evidence,  which  often 
does  not  yield  up  its  secrets  without  some  perhaps  disproportion- 
ate expenditure  of  pains  and  use  of  what  a  master  of  modern 
historical  criticism,  the  late  Comte  Riant,  was  wont  to  call  a  ctti 
knowledge.  But,  I  am  anxious  if  possible  to  keep  the  main 
lines  of  enquiry  clear.  And,  behind  the  multiplicity  of  tech- 
nical, it  might  seem  trivial,  detail  there  lies  a  large  and  living 
question,  the  change  in  the  tone  and  character  of  English  piety 
induced  by  the  Norman  Conquest.3 

1  The  Benedictional  Had.  MS.  2892  has  for  the  feast  of  St.  Elphege  (May  19)  two  bene- 
dictions, for  his  translation  (June  8)  three;  for  St.  Dunstan  (May  19)  four,  beside*  (a  unique 
distinction)  one  for  the  Vigil. 

'  But  see  note,  on  24  and  25  Aug.  of  Table.  In  Eadmer's  inedited  tract  on  the  relics  of  St. 
Audoen,  C.C.C.C.  MS.  371  p.  440  seqq.  is  a  passage  that  may  be  given  here,  as  it  has  a  bearing 
on  some  things  already  said  in  the  course  of  the  present  discussion.  He  narrates  how  'cum 
post  decessum  superius  nominati  patris  Lanfranci  quadam  die  in  claustro  ex  more  sederem 
occupatus  libro  quern  scribendo  inter  manus  habebam,  venit  ad  me  nominatissimus  ille  cantor 
Osbernus  nomine,  et  sedens  ita  cepit  dicere:  "Tempore  suo  felicis  memoriae  pater  Lanfrancus, 
sicut  fraternitas  tua  bene  novit,  sua  sanctione  precepit  ut  scrinea  et  capsas  istius  ecclesiae 
perscrutaremur  et  quid  reliquiarum  in  eis  habetur  investigaremus.  Quod  quidem  ex  parte 
fecimus";'  but  one  shrine,  seized  by  a  holy  fear,  Osbern  could  not  make  up  his  mind  to  open. 
'Come  and  let  us  examine  it  now'.  So  said,  so  done.  The  formalities  attending  the  verification, 
of  interest  to  the  ritualist,  are  described;  the 'secretarii' — sacristy  folk — take  also  due  part; 
what  was  found  therein;  among  the  rest  two 'cartulae',  on  one  of  which  was  written  'reliquiae 
sancti  Gregorii  papae',  on  the  other  'reliquiae  sancti  Audoeni  confessoris'.  Osbern's  fear,  it 
will  be  observed,  passes  with  the  passing  away  of  the  terrible  old  man  'of  happy  memory'. 

8  There  is  for  instance  a  sharply  cut  distinction  in  regard  to  the  feast  of  the  Conception  of 
the  Blessed  Virgin  between  the  devotion  of  Anglo-Saxon  times  and  the  devotion  as  revived  in  the 

64 


One  matter  of  detail  must  however  be  dealt  with.  At  p  24 
n.  2,  mention  is  made  of  an  erased  entry  in  the  calendar  B  at  17 
March,  and  it  is  there  said  the  letters  cep'  were  still  distinguish- 
able. Here  is  an  instance  how  a  good  photographic  reproduction 
is  not  infrequently  more  useful  for  working  purposes  than  the 
original  manuscript  itself.  Since  that  note  was  in  print,  with  the 
application  of  a  chemical  reagent,  and  with  some  pains  it  was 
possible  to  two  pairs  of  eyes  to  recover  this:  *  N.  sci  Eadwardi 

regis'.  But  without  the  original  MS.,  without  chemical  reagent,  and 
without  other  pains  than  is  implied  in  seeing  what  is  easily  to  be  seen 
in  a  good  photograph,  the  erased  entry  appeared  as  *  F.  Natale  sci 
Eadwardi  regis  et  (martyris)'. — This  is  the  only  entry  in  the 
calendar  which  prefixes  the  word  'Natale  '  to  the  name  of  the  saint, 
and  combines  the  use  (elsewhere  wholly  exceptional)  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  c  w ' '  r '  and  the  letter c  d '  with  a  stroke  sharply  curved  to  the 
left. l  In  the  circumstances  it  seems  hardly  open  to  doubt  this  is  an 
entry  made  later,  although  it  is  in  the  same  sort  of  neat  hand  as  the 
original  script.  The  designation  of  the  feast  (at  Canterbury)  with 
the  significant  'F  '  and  its  total  erasure  would  thus  have  a  bearing 
on  the  probable  date  of  the  calendar  itself.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  we  know  nothing  precisely  as  to  the  time  or  the  places  in 
which  the  cult  of  St.  Edward  the  king  and  martyr  began :  but  we 
do  know  that  such  cult  in  the  beginning  may,  perhaps  must,  have 
had  a  political  cast  and  probably  was  a  party  note.  We  may  in 
the  circumstances  fairly  hazard  the  conjecture  that  the  high  grad- 
ing of  this  feast  and  its  total  erasure  in  Canterbury  point  to  a  time 
when  in  regard  to  the  murder  of  the  son  of  Edgar,  and  other 
public  matters  also,  party  passions  were  high  and  divisions  in  the 

Anglo-Norman  church  of  the  twelfth  century.  In  the  earlier  period  it  wa9  pure  piety  without 
doctrinal  after-thought;  in  the  later  the  doctrinal  element  is  present  if  not  predominant  so  that 
the  feast  has  now  become  in  fact  if  not  in  name  the  feast  of  the  Immaculate  Conception,  even 
for  Osbert  de  Clare  and  Eadmer  (see  the  remarks  of  Fr.  Slater,  S.  J.,  Eadmeri  Tractatut  de  Concept- 
ion, pp.  x-xix;  and  P.  Aug.  Noyon,  S.  J.,  ubi  supra,  p.  14  seqq.)  P.  Noyon  (p.  24)  also  calls  attention 
to  the  'principe  fecond  de  theologie  mariale '  laid  down  by  Nicholas  of  St.  Albans,  that  '  chaque 
fois  qu'une  presomption  est  en  faveur  de  Marie  il  la  faut  tenir  pour  fondee  tant  qu'elle  n'est  pas 
dimontree  fauise'. 

1  For  instances  of  the  use  of  these  three  forms  see  in  the  MS.  the  entry  of  St.  Werburga  at 
Feb.  3  and  St.  Ermenilda  at  13  Feb.  For  the  entry  of  the  feast  at  March  17  (instead  of  18) 
see  footnote  to  the  Table  at  that  date. 

65 


body  politic  cut  deep.  It  has  been  said  above  (p.  27)  that  the 
calendar  was  written  between  988  and  1023;  by  the  later  date  no 
difficulties  would  arise  as  to  the  celebration  of  the  feast  of  St 
Edward;  and  all  this  tends  to  make  it  probable  the  calendar  B 
was  written  nearer  the  earlier  date  than  the  later. 

With  further  questions  of  detail  thus  put  aside,  we  can  sum- 
marize and  conclude  on  all  that  has  been  hitherto  said. 

I.  It  was  first  shewn  that  the  calendar  of  the  Bosworth 
Psalter  (B)  has  for  basis  a  Glastonbury  calendar,  not  identical 
with  but  akin  to  that  found  in  the  Leofric  Missal  (G)  of  the 
second  half  of  the  tenth  century;  that  both  go  back  to  a  common 
original  (p.  21);  that  B  is  a  calendar  of  Canterbury  (pp.  26-27); 
and  not  of  St.  Augustine's  but  of  the  cathedral  (p.  34  seqq.). 

II.  Next,  it  has  been  pointed  out  (p.  27)  that  B  is  not  the 
basis  of  the  later  mediaeval  (post-Conquest)  calendar  of  that  cathe- 
dral; but  as  such  basis  a  calendar  or  different  origin  and  tradi- 
tion has  been  substituted  for  it;  which  calendar  has  been  identified 
with  the  traditional  calendar  of  the  church  of  Winchester  in  its 
post-Conquest  form  represented  by  the  calendar  in  Arundel  MS. 
60  (p.  30)  and  it  was  mentioned  (p.  35)  that  such  sort  of  Win- 
chester calendar  was  also  the  basis  of  the  late  mediaeval  calendar  of 
St.  Augustine's. 

III.  It  was  then  stated  (p.  30)  that  a  calendar  contained  in 
the  Arundel  MS.  155  is  an  example  or  copy  (for  of  course  a 
church  like  Canterbury  possessed  more  than  one  copy  of  its 
current  calendar)  of  such  Winchester  calendar  as  adopted  in, 
and  adapted  to  the  use  of,  Canterbury  cathedral  presumably  (as 
all  indications  go  to  shew)  in  Lanfranc's  time  (p.  31-32).  It  was 
further  pointed  out  (pp.  29-30)  how  this  very  interesting  MS. 
is,  by  additions  made  at  later  times  and  by  various  hands,  a  record 
of  the  steps  by  which  the  calendar  as  originally  drawn  up  developed 
into  the  Canterbury  cathedral  calendar  as  found  with  proper 
designations  of  the  gradings  of  feasts  in  MSS.  from  the  thirteenth 
century  to  the  fifteenth. 

IV.  It  has  also  been  shown  (p.  57  seqq.)  how  the  calendar  in 
Arundel  MS.  155,  in  a  particular  which  in  enquiries  of  this  kind 
is  of  primary  value,  namely  local  relic  cults,  bears  on  the  face 
of  it  evidence  which  unmistakably  associates  it  with  the  special 
relic  cults  of  Canterbury  cathedral,  and  marks  it  off  in  this  point 

66 


from  the  known  calendars  of  all  other  churches.  We  therefore, 
quite  apart  from  the  considerations  adduced  in  part  L,  are  led  by 
the  mere  facts  relating  a  single  item  of  detail,  to  the  identification 
of  the  place  to  which  this  calendar  would  properly  and  exclu- 
sively belong. 

V.  But,  after  all,  the  substitution  of  a  Winchester  calendar  at 
Canterbury,  if  a  violent  measure  in  itself,  was  only  the  radical  appli- 
cation of  a  process  that  in  a  tentative  way  and  in  a  few  exceptional 
cases  had  been  going  on  during  the  whole  course  of  the  eleventh 
century,  when  church  after  church  had  already  begun  freely  to 
adopt  local  Winchester  feasts  which,  viewed  in  themselves,  to 
those  churches  were  not  of  concern  or  interest  (p.  59  seqq.);  and 
the  presence  of  five  specifically  Winchester  feasts  in  the  calendar 
of  Arundel  MS.  155  is  no  objection  to  the  identification  of  the 
latter  as  a  Canterbury  calendar. 

VI.  Still  less  does  the  absence  from  Arundel  155  of  the 
local  Canterbury  saints  so  numerous  in  B  militate  against  the 
attribution  of  the  former  to  Canterbury  after  the  Norman 
Conquest.  Indeed  the  state  of  things  shewn  in  Arundel  155, 
viz:  the  reduction  of  Canterbury  saints  to  two  (St.  Augustine 
and  St.  Elphege),  exactly  corresponds  with  Lanfranc's  prescriptions 
for  his  cathedral  church  laid  down  in  the  Constitutions  drawn  up 
and  promulgated  by  himself  (pp.  31-32). 

VII.  Two  special  items  are  dealt  with  as  serving  to  show,  by 
way  of  specimen,  the  sort  of  indications  that  may  be  looked  for 
as  differentiating  calendars  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  and  the  early 
Norman  periods  respectively.  One  of  these  (certain  feasts  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin)  concerns  both  Canterbury  and  Winchester(p.  43 
seqq.),  the  other  (Breton  cults)  Winchester  alone  (p.  53  seqq.); 
and  they  evidence  how  the  presence  or  absence  of  such  feasts 
would  induce  us  prima  facie  to  assign  the  calendar  Vitellius  E 
xviii  to  a  date  before,  those  of  Arundel  MSS.  60  and  155  to 
a  date  after,  the  Conquest. 

It  would  be  easy  to  extend  and  multiply  the  more  general 
lines  of  enquiry  opened  up  in  both  parts  of  this  *  Consultatio '  or 
to  reinforce  this  or  that  particular  statement.  But  what  has 
been  said  is,  I  trust,  sufficient  to  show  how 

(1)  B  is  a  calendar  of  Canterbury  cathedral  that  was  in  use 

67 


before  the  Conquest,  and  that  it  goes  back  for  its  original  on 
Glastonbury; 

(2)  the  calendar  of  Arundel  MS.  155  is  a  calendar  of 
Canterbury  cathedral  after  the  Conquest,  and  goes  back  for  its 
original  on  Winchester. 

10.  TABLE  OF  CANTERBURY  CALENDARS 

It  remains  to  give  a  conspectus  in  the  brief  space  of  a  Table  of  the 
contents  of  the  calendars  of  Canterbury  cathedral  from  the  eleventh 
century  to  the  fifteenth;  together  with  a  Winchester  calendar 
serving  as  a  specimen  of  that  on  which  the  Canterbury  calendar 
at  its  revision  after  the  Conquest  was  based.  This  will  enable  the 
reader  the  better  to  follow  and  in  some  measure  control  what 
has  been  said  in  the  preceding  pages.  That  it  is  possible  to  give 
such  a  Table  at  all  is  due  to  the  kindness  of  Mr.  Sydney  C.  Cockerell 
who  has  communicated  to  me  copies  of  N09  4,  5,  6,  9  and  11  of  the 
list  given  below;  of  all  which  I  had  no  knowledge  when  the  first 
part  of  this  tract  on  the  calendar  of  the  Bosworth  Psalter  was 
written.  Mr.  Cockerell  has  increased  my  personal  obligation  by 
also  submitting  the  proofs  of  that  part  to  an  effective  revision  for 
which  I  am  most  grateful. 

The  following  is  a  list  of  the  MSS.  from  which  the  calendars 
comprised  in  the  Table  are  drawn. 

(1)  The  Bosworth  Psalter,  now  B.  M.  Addit.  MS.  37,517;  a 
Canterbury  cathedral  calendar  the  date  of  which  lies  between 
988  and  1023  (see  p.  27,  65-66). 

(2)  Arundel  MS.  60;  a  Winchester  calendar,  after  the  Con- 
quest. 

All  the  calendars  that  follow  are  of  Canterbury  cathedral. 

(3)  Arundel  MS.  155;  a  calendar  of  the  later  years  of  the 
eleventh  century;  perhaps  about  the  year  1080  (see  p.  30  seqq., 
39,  and  note  on  19  May  in  the  Table). 

(4)  The  well-known  Eadwine  Psalter  at  Trinity  College,  Cam- 
bridge; written  before  11 70. 

(5)  Paris  B.  N.  Nouv.  acq.  Lat.  1670;  a  Psalter  assigned  to 
about  the  year  1200. 

(6)  Paris  B.  N.  Lat.  770.  The  calendar  does  not  contain  the 
feast  of  the  Translation  of  St.  Thomas;  and  is  assigned  to  about 

68 


the  year  1220.  This  interesting  document  is  a  genuine  copy  of 
a  calendar  of  Canterbury  cathedral,  but  with  many  foreign  and 
especially  Cluniac  insertions. 

(7)  Cotton  MS.  Tiberius  B  in;  a  calendar  seemingly  of  about 
1 240- 1 2  50. 

(8)  Egerton  MS.  2867  of  about  the  same  date;  in  the  calendar 
at  19  October  is  entered  the  Dedication  of  St.  Martin's  Dover,  a 
cell  of  Christ  Church,  Canterbury. 

(9)  Canterbury  Horae  in  the  Nilrnberg  Public  Library;  with 
Hours  of  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury  after  those  of  the  B.  V.,  and 
Hours  of  the  Holy  Trinity  after  those  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  of  the 
beginning  of  the  14th  century;  the  calendar  is  in  a  different  hand. 

(10)  B.  M.  Addit.  MS.  6160.  In  this  calendar  the  feast  of 
St.  Thomas  of  Hereford  (canonized  in  1320)  is  added  in  another 
hand;  as  well  as  an  octave  for  the  Ordination  of  St.  Dunstan; 
seemingly  of  a  date  not  long  before   1320. 

(11)  MS.  Bodl.  D  2.  2.  The  feast  of  St.  Thomas  and  the 
attempted  octave,  mentioned  under  (10),  are  written  in  this  calen- 
dar by  the  original  hand  which  is  of  the  first  half  of  the  fourteenth 
century. 

(12)  Lambeth  MS.  558;  a  calendar  of  the  fourteenth  century. 

(13)  B.  M.  Sloane  MS.  3887;  a  calendar  of  the  early  part 
of  the  fifteenth  century;  the  months  of  March,  April,  May  and 
July  are  wanting.1 

N08  1,  2  and  3  have  each  a  special  column  in  the  Table;  the 

1  Besides  the  twelve  above  enumerated  two  other  calendars  of  Canterbury  cathedral  have 
come  to  notice,  the  Bodl.  MS.  Add.  C.  260  of  the  twelfth  century,  and  a  calendar  in  the  Eton 
MS.  78  of  the  thirteenth.  These  are  omitted  from  the  Table  that  follows  which  therefore  is 
incomplete  and,  as  a  piece  of  work,  so  far  wanting  in  thoroughness.  Of  the  calendar  in  the  Eton 
MS.  only  the  months  of  March,  April,  November  and  December  remain;  the  litany  contained  in 
the  volume  is  certainly  a  litany  that  could  come  only  from  Canterbury  cathedral;  the  calendar- 
leaves  give  the  names  of  Mellitus  and  Justus  who  had  cult  at  St.  Augustine's  and  not  at  the 
cathedral,  and  of  St.  Birinus  who  had  cult  at  neither;  but  it  appears  that  the  entries  in  these  leaves 
are  in  more  than  one  hand. 

The  interesting  Bodleian  MS.  consists  of  a  calendar  only,  which  is  complete,  and  at  once 
shews  itself  as  curiously  irregular  in  its  graphic  features.  Whilst  some  fifteen  feasts  of  high  grade, 
imong  them  the  Epiphany,  are  entered  in  small  letters  in  black,  others,  often  for  no  obvious 
reason,  are  written  in  black  capitals,  others  in  red  capitals,  others  in  small  letters  red.  A  few  are 
in  varied  colours  and  large  capitals,  but  here  the  reasons  seem  more  clearly  to  appear.    Besides  all 

69 


remaining  ten  calendars,  referred  to  by  their  numbers,  are  included 
together  in  the  fourth  column;  and  the  gradings  of  feasts  are 
given  in  the  fifth.  Fixed  commemorations  (e.  g.  the  Resurrection 
at  25  March,  the  First  Pentecost  at  15  May,  etc.)  and  entries 
relating  to  the  astronomical  year  are  omitted  as  having  no  bearing 
on  the  present  enquiry  and  merely  encumbering  the  text.  But 
the  Table  is  so  drawn  up  that  the  specifically  church  calendar  of 
any  manuscript  included  in  it  may  be  easily  reconstructed  there- 
from. To  save  space  the  descriptions  are  abridged  (cm. '  for 
'  mar. ', ■  c£ '  for  '  conf. '  etc.  etc.),  and  the  regular  designation  '  Sci ', 
*  Scae',  is  omitted;  but  any  characteristic  or  abnormal  form  is  pre- 
served as  well  as  the  orthography  of  the  proper  names;  and  for 
clearness  a  separate  line  is  given  to  each  different  feast  or  name 
occurring  in  the  thirteen  calendars.  When  in  the  fourth  column 
no  name  is  given  the  numbers  are  to  be  understood  as  meaning 
that  the  calendars  enumerated  give  the  feast  found  in  the  third 
column,  never  the  first  or  second.1 

Only  the  entries  in  the  original  hand  of  the  various  calendars 
find  notice  in  the  Table;  but  all  the  names  of  saints  are  given, 
including  those  which  are  due  only  to  scribal  caprice  (cf.  p.  29  n.  1) 
and  never  formed  part  of  the  official  calendar  of  Canterbury 
cathedral.  In  footnotes  at  the  end  of  each  month  are  given: 
(a)  a  list  of  the  Benedictions  in  Harl.  MS.  2892,  as  illustrating 
the  Canterbury  cathedral  calendar  between  the  date  of  B  and  the 
Conquest;  (£)  the  variations  from  the  calendar  of  Arundel  MS. 

this  there  is  free  admixture  of  later  entries  in  various  hands.  A  mere  photographic  reproduction 
however  excellent  cannot  render  the  real  features  of  the  MS.  But,  besides  that  I  wish  in  this  tract 
to  keep  on  the  firmer  ground  of  more  commonplace  discussion,  I  must  leave  it  to  others,  by  dis- 
tinguishing original  from  non-original  entries  and  assigning  to  these  latter  their  respective  measure 
of  contemporaneousness  or  lateness,  to  reconstitute  from  the  Bodleian  MS.  a  calendar  of 
Canterbury  cathedral  of  the  first  half  or  middle  of  the  twelfth  century;  a  task  in  which  a  compa- 
rison  with  the  later  entries  in  Arundel  MS.  155  would  be  found  useful. 

For  the  purposes  of  the  present  tract  the  calendar  of  the  Eadwine  psalter,  though  of  slightljr 
liter  date,  fully  suffices,  and  it  is  not  subject  to  drawbacks  attaching  to  the  Bodleian  MS.;  but  I 
have  endeavoured  to  notice  below  the  items  of  this  latter  that  seem  interesting. 

1  Where  the  letter  S  or  F  is  given  in  the  calendar  of  the  Bosworth  Psalter  before  an  entry 
with  the  names  of  two  feasts,  these  have  been  bracketed  in  the  print  although  I  do  not  think  there 
m  at  any  time  real  cause  for  doubt  of  the  feasts  to  which  the  distinguishing  letter  relates. 


60  of  the  Winchester  missal  of  c.  1 1201  as  illustrating  the  history 
of  the  Winchester  calendar  in  the  half  century  after  the  Conquest; 
(£•)  the  complete  series  of  additions  made  by  various  hands  to  the 
calendar  of  Arundel  MS.  155  (seep.  28  seqq.);  and  (d)  the  en- 
tries made  by  later  hands  in  N03  7  and  10;  and  the  foreign  and 
Cluniac  entries  in  N°  6. 

The  gradings  in  the  fifth  column  are  by  no  means  the  least 
instructive  part  of  the  calendar.  A  complete  set  is  found  in  one 
manuscript  only,  N°  7,  the  Cotton  MS.  Tiberius  B  in.  But  it  has 
suffered  from  the  fire;  even  where  the  margin  is  burnt  the 
gradings  can,  I  think,  be  still  discerned  with  practical  certainty 
except  in  two  or  three  cases.  The  other  MSS.  available  for  gra- 
dings are  Nos  8,  10,  11,  12  and  13.  No  one  of  them  is  quite 
complete;  each  is  curiously  and  capriciously  defective  in  a  few 
particulars  especially  in  the  case  of  mere  commemorations:  but 
these  deficiencies  are  commonly  different  in  each  different  manu- 
script, so  that  in  practice  there  is  no  difficulty  in  following  the 
variations  from  the  thirteenth  to  the  fifteenth  century.  The 
gradings  of  the  original  hand  only  of  each  manuscript  are  given  in 
this  column,  and  no  notice  is  taken  of  later  additions  or  corrections 
which  would  only  produce  confusion.  Such  corrections  and  addi- 
tionsare  very  numerous  in  N°  3,  and  are  also  not  uncommon  in  Nos  7 
and  10.  But  the  corrections  of  grading  in  N03  3  and  7  appear  in  the 
first  hand  in  the  later  MSS.,  with  a  few  exceptions  given  in  the 
footnote.  As  these  exceptions  in  N°  3  shew  a  heightening  of 
the  grade  it  is  to  be  supposed  that  they  are  of  a  late  date,  and  of 
the  fifteenth  century.3 

1  See  a  notice  of  this  MS.  by  M.  Leopold  Delisle  in  Revue  des  Societes  Sa-vantes,  •/*  sir. 
tome  vi  p.  33  seqq.  M.  Ch.  Fierville  has  printed  in  Recueil  des  Publications  de  la  Sorie'te  Ha-vraist 
d'Etudes  diverses  (annees  1880-81)  pp.  407-456  the  prefaces  in  this  missal  with  the  title  of  the 
mattes  -which  have  not  a  special  preface.  In  M.  Delisle's  list  St.  Sexburga,  6  July,  has  by  accident 
been  omitted. 

'  Where  the  grading  is  given  in  the  Notet  to  columns  m  and  iv  with, the  name  of  the  feast 
it  is  to  be  understood  that  the  whole  entry  (feast  and  grading)  is  in  one  hand.  One  kind  of  alteration 
of  grading  by  a  later  hand,  found  only  in  No.  10,  must  be  noticed  here.  The  twelve  lessons  on  four- 
teen featts  are  reduced  to  eight,  with  a  direction  to  'sing'  of  a  secondary  feast,  or  (much  more 
commonly)  of  a  current  octave;  and  the  same  direction  is  given  also  for  one  feast  'in  cappis ',  one  in 
'  albis'  and  one  of  '3  R\  This  seems  to  shew  that  in  the  fifteenth  century  there  was  a  change 
of  practice  in  Canterbury  cathedral  and  a  levelling  up  to  the  ways  of  modern  times.     We  here 

7* 


The  abbreviations  used  to  designate  the  gradings  in  column  v, 
besides  the  ordinary  twelve,  eight,  or  three  lessons  and  the  com- 
memoration, are:  'in  a.  '= 'in  albis';  'in  a.  a. '='inalbis  altis';  'in 
a.  s.'='in  albis  simplicibus';  'in  c.'='in  cappis';  'in  c.  a.'='in 
cappis  altis';  '  in  c.  s. '=' in  cappis  simplicibus ';  'cc'  or  'ct.'= 
'cantic.'j'cc.  ctl.'  =' cantic.  et  lect. '  In  our  MSS. '3  R'  is  simply 
equivalent  to  the  ordinary  '  3  lc' ;  it  is  the  form  almost  invariably 
used  in  N°  7  for  feasts  of  three  lessons,  whilst  its  contemporary  N°  8 
favours  the  usual  form  '3  lc.';  the  later  MSS.  usually  have  like 

N    7 €  3  R  \ 

The  following  is  Lanfranc's  grading  of  feasts  above  twelve 
lessons  as  prescribed  in  his  Statutes,  which  give  the  observance 
appropriate  to  each  class  in  great  detail,  down  to  the  putting  out 
on  feasts  of  the  first  and  second  classes  only  of  best  towels  to  over- 
lay the  ordinary  ones  (super  tersoria  quotidiana  sint  extensa)  and  to 
be  used  exclusively  at  washing  before  the  two  meals  of  the  day 
(nisi  tantummodo  ad  refecHonem  primam  et  sero  ad  cccnani). 

I.  Quinque  sunt  praecipuae  festivitates;  id  est,  Natale  Do- 
mini (25  Dec),  Resurrectionis  ejus,  Pentecostes,  Assumptio 
S.  Genetricis  Dei  Mariae  (15  Aug.),  Festivitas  loci.  .  .  . 

II.  Sunt  aliae  festivitates  quae  magnifice  celebrantur,  quamvis 
non  aequaliter  superioribus;  sunt  autem  hae:  Epiphania  (6  Jan.), 
Purirkatio  S.  Mariae  (2  Feb.),  festivitas  S.  Gregorii  (12  Mar.), 
Annunciatio  Christi  (25  Mar.),  Octava  dies  paschalis  solemnitatis, 
festivitas  S.  Alfegi  martyris  (19  Apr.),  Ascensio  Christi,  festivitas 
S.  Augustini  Anglorum  archiepiscopi  (26  May),  Octava  Pente- 
costes dies,  Nativitas  S.  Johannis  Baptistae  (24  June),  Passio 
Apostolorum  Petri  et  Pauli  (29  June),  Translatio  S.  Benedicti 
(11   July),  Nativitas  S.  Mariae  (8   Sept.),  festivitas  S.   Michaelis 

assist  at  the  promotion  there  of  the  hard  rulei  of  the  Pie,  reiulting  so  often  from  the  multiplica- 
tion of  octaves  on  the  one  hand  and  on  the  other  the  disuse  of  the  good  old  Roman  simple  plan 
of  observing  an  octave  by  saying  a  prayer  on  the  sole  eighth  day  after  the  feast  and  that  was  all. 
The  more  modern  plan  had  however  been  occupying  the  minds  of  Franco-German  experts  ag 
early  at  the  ninth  century.  Whether  in  these  seventeen  cases  four  lessons  were  said  or  any,  and 
what  'singing'  was  done — whether  by  the  antiphons  of  Bcnedictus  and  Magnificat  only,  or  other- 
wise— for  the  secondary  feasts  or  octaves,  must  be  questions  reserved  for  those  versed  in  the  rubric* 
and  current  practice  of  the  fifteenth  century.  In  the  same  way  I  must  leave  it  to  others  too  to 
throw  light  on  the  nice  questions  involved  in  the  distinctive  use  of  certain  vestures  'high'  or 
•simple'  that  are  raised  by  these   Canterbury  calendars. 

72 


(29   Sept.),   festivitas   Omnium   Sanctorum  (1    Nov.),   festivitas 
S.  Andreae  (30  Nov.),  Dedicatio  ecclesiae.  .  .  . 

III.  Sunt  aliae  tertiae  classis  festivitates,  quae  non  tantopere 
celebrantur;  hae  autem  sunt:  festivitas  S.  Vincentii  (22  Jan.), 
Conversio  S.  Pauli  (25  Jan.),  Philippi  et  Jacobi  (1  May),  Inventio 
S.  Crucis  (3  May),  Jacobi  apostoli  (25  July),  S.  Petri  in  Calendis 
Augusti  (1  Aug.),  Laurentii  martyris  (10  Aug.),  Octava  dies 
Assumptions  S.  Mariae  (22   Aug.),  Bartholomaei  apostoli,1  Au- 

1  At  the  last  moment,  suppressing  the  few  words  intended  to  be  said  in  note  on  24  and  25 
August  of  the  Table  (see  p.  64  note  2),  I  add  in  this  place  some  particular*  as  to  the  feasts  of 
St.  Audoen  and  St.  Bartholomew  which  may  save  time  and  trouble,  or  give  a  fair  start,  to  some  more 
curious  enquirer.  I  confine  my  attention  to  the  calendars  and  leave  the  arrangements  of  the 
mass-books  to  others. 

St.  Audoen  died  on  24  Aug.  The  abbey  of  St.  Ouen  at  Rouen  kept  even  seemingly  up  to 
the  date  of  its  suppression,  the  feast  of  its  patron  on  the  24th;  but  elsewhere  in  the  diocese  of 
Rouen  the  feast  was  kept  on  the  26th  the  24th  being  assigned  to  St.  Bartholomew  and  the  25th 
to  St.  Louis. 

The  old  and  genuine  date  of  St.  Bartholomew  was  25  Aug.;  but  he  was  entered  by  Usuard 
and  Florus  in  the  ninth  century  in  their  martyrologies  at  the  24th,  which  is  now  generally 
observed  as  his  day;  the  Vatican  Basilica  (according  to  the  Breviary  of  1674)  still,  however 
keeps  the  feast  of  St.  Bartholomew  on  the  25  th. 

The  calendar  of  the  Athelstan  Psalter  Galba  A  xviii  seems  to  be  the  earliest  record  of  the 
14th  in  England.  The  introduction  of  the  feast  of  St.  Audoen  further  complicated  matters.  The 
itate  of  the  case  in  the  hundred  years  before  the  Conquest  is  this: 

(a)  G  and  B,  Nero  A  11  and  the  calendar  in  the  missal  of  Robert  of  Jumieges  have  not 
admitted  St.  Audoen  and  have  St  Bartholomew  at  the  25th. 

(b)  Winchester  as  represented  by  Titus  D  xxvn  has  St.  Audoen  at  the  24th  and  St.  Bar- 
tholomew at  the  25th.  This  seems  also  to  have  been  the  original  reading  of  Vitellius  E  xviii; 
though  it  has  suffered  from  both  erasures  and  fire,  what  remains  shews  that  this  calendar  originally 
had  an  entry  at  each  of  these  two  days.  With  the  Titus  MS.  originally  agreed  Salisbury  MS.  150 
the  Sherborne  calendar  in  the  Red  Book  of  Derby  (if  I  rightly  scan  and  divine  the  original  entries 
of  these  two  days),  the  so-called  Worcester  calendar  in  Bodl.  MS.  Junius  99,  and  the  Douce  MS.  296. 

(c)  Both  the  Salisbury  MS.  150  and  the  Sherborne  calendar  as  corrected,  the  calendar  in  the 
Worcester  Breviary  C  C  C  C.  MS.  391,  and  the  calendar  in  Vitellius  A  xviii  have  SS.  Bartholo- 
mew and  Audoen  on  the  24th. 

The  Arundel  MS.  60  agrees  with  the  group  (b)  in  assigning  Audoen  to  the  24th  and  Bar- 
tholomew to  the  25th.  In  Arundel  MS.  155  there  are  erasures  at  these  two  days  and  a  later  hand 
has  entered  Bartholomew  at  the  24th  and  Audoen  at  the  25th,  which  is  the  arrangement  found  in 
the  subsequent  Canterbury  cathedral  calendars  as  shewn  in  the  Table. 

What  was  the  original  arrangement  in  Arundel   155?    The  Benedictional   Harl.  MS.  2892 

73 


gustini  doctoris  (28  Aug.),  Decollatio  S.  Johannis  Baptistae  (29 
Aug.),  Exaltatio  S.  Crucis  (14  Sept.),  Matthaei  apostoli  (21  Sept.), 
Simonis  et  Judae  (28  Oct.),  B.  Martini  (11  Nov.),  Thomae 
apostoli  (21  Dec),  et  si  quae  aliae  festivitates  ita  celebrari  insti- 
tuantur  (a  provision  for  the  future,  therefore).  .  .  . 

Besides  the  foregoing  Lanfranc  mentions  incidentally  the 
great  feasts  of  SS.  Stephen,  John  Evangelist,  the  Innocents,  and 
the  Circumcision;  but  these  are  conceived  of  as  part  of  the  high 
octave  of  Christmas. 

does  not  give  the  datts  of  the  feasti  but  the  following  is  the  order  of  the  benedictions  at  this  point: 
Assumption,  St.  Audoen,  St.  Bartholomew,  St.  Augustine.  From  an  anecdote  given  in  his  Life 
of  St.  Dunstan  (written  seemingly  about  1089)  it  appears  that  at  some  time  within  Osbern'i 
personal  recollection  St.  Bartholomew  and  St.  Audoen  were  at  Canterbury  cathedral  both  feasted 
on  the  same  day  (whether  the  24th  or  25th  is  not  stated),  and  on  this  day  was  also  kept  what  we 
should  now  call  the  feast  of  relics  of  that  church  (Memorials  of  St.  Dunstan  pp.  136,  137).  Eadmer 
telling  the  same  story  some  twenty  years  later  changes  Osbern's  'when  we  had  begun'  and  'we 
sang'  into  the  impersonal  'cantaretur'  but  mentions  only  the  concurrent  feasts  of  St.  Audoen  and 
of  relics  assigning  these  expressly  to  the  24th,  thus  implying  a  change  had  been  made  since  Os- 
bern's early  days  and  that  St.  Bartholomew  was  now  feasted  on  another  day,  and  this  could  be  only 
the  25th.  If  on  Lanfranc's  settlement  of  the  Canterbury  calendar  these  two  feasts  were  so  fixed, 
this  would  explain  the  erasures  in  Arundel  MS.  155  and  at  the  same  time  confirm  the  agreement 
of  Arundel  155  as  originally  written  with  Arundel  60.  The  entry  of  Audoen  on  the  24th  with 
Bartholomew,  as  well  as  on  the  25th,  in  the  calendar  of  the  Eadwine  Psalter  of  before  1 170  may 
be  a  chance  survival  of  record  of  the  arrangement  that  had  been  given  up  nearly  a  century  earlier. 


74 


A  TABLE  OF 
CANTERBURY      CATHEDRAL      CALENDARS 

FROM  THE 
ELEVENTH   TO   THE    FIFTEENTH    CENTURY 


JANUARY 
BOSWORTH 


ARUNDEL  60        ARUNDEL  155 


DAY 

1  F.ClRCLMCISIO 

D.N.J.C. 

2  Isidori  ep. 


3       Genouefe  v. 


5       Simeonis  mon. 


Circumcisio 
D.N.JC.  * 

Oct.  Stephani 
protomar. 

Oct.  Johannis  ev. 
Oct.  Innocentum 
Simeonis  mon. 


Circumcisio  D. 


Genouefae  v. 


Epiphania  D.  ^        Epiphania  D. 


6  F.EpiphaniaD. N. 

8  Lucianietjuliani 

9  F.Adriani  abb. 

Furtunati 

Transl.  Judoci  cf.  €B 
10      Pauli  primi  herem.  Pauli  primi  herem. 

1 2  Dep.  Benedicti  abb. 

13  S.Octavas  Epiph.        Oct.  Epiphan. 


14       Felicis  inPincis 

16  ~  J  Marcelli  pp. 
Fursei  prb. 


Hilarii  '  mar.' 
Felicis  in  Pincis 
Mauri  abb. 
Marcelli  pp. 


17      Antonii  mon.  Antoni  mon. 


1 8  -  (  Petri  Cathedra 
*{  Prisce  v. 

'9 


Prisce  v. 

* Marie  et  Marthe 


Paul  primi  herem. 

Oct.  Epiphan. 
Hilarii  ep. 
Felicis  in  Pincis 
Mauri  abb. 
Marcelli  pp. 


Antonii  mon. 


Priscae  v. 

Marii  et  Marthae 


76 


JANUARY 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 
CALENDARS  (XII-XVC) 

DAY 
I       4-13 

Basilii  7 


Oct.  Steph.  6-13 


GRADING 
II.  7,  12;  in  c.  8,  11,  14. 

iii  R  7,  8,  10-12;  xii  lc  13. 


Oct.  Joh.  ev.  6-13 

4  Oct.  Inn.  6-13 

5  Simeonis  mon.  5. 
Edwardi  reg.  6-8,  10-13. 
Oct.  Thome  arep.  9,  11. 

6  4-13. 

8  Luciani  soc.que  9. 

9  Adriani  abb.  4-8,  10-13. 


iii  R  7,  8,  10,  11,  13. 

iii  lc  8,  10-13  (7  illegible.). 

com  10,  11,  13. 

II.  7,  8,  10,  13;  III.  12. 

xii  lc  7,  8,  10,  13. 


10 

12 

13  4,  6-13. 

4,  5>  7-I3-1 

14  4,  5,  6-13. 

J5     4-i3- 
16     4,  6-13. 

Fursei  pr.  4,  6-8,  10-13. 


17 
18 

J9 


Sulpicii  ep.  9. 
4-13- 


xii  lc  7,  8,  10-12;  in  a.  13. 
com  7,  10-13. 

?  xii  lc  7,  8;  3  R  10,  11,  13. 
xii  lc  7,  8,  10,  11,  13. 
cc.  &  1  7;  com  12:  cc.  10,  13. 
xii  lc  7,*  8,  10-13   (*3  a^so: 
quasi  in  a.). 


iii  R  7,  8,  10-12;  com  13. 


Wulstani  ep.  9-13.  xii  lc  10,  12,  13;  quasi  in  a.  II. 

1  In  N°  6  Hilary  is  by  mistake  entered  at  14th  with  Felix. 

2  N°  7,  after  the  entry  'Fursei ',  has  * viii  lc'  as  well  as  xii  lc;  N°  10  has  xii  lc  with '  viii  lc* 
added  by  another  hand. 

77 


BOSWORTH 


ARUNDEL  60   ARUNDEL  155 


DAY 

20  S.Sebastiani  et 

Fabiani  m. 

2 1  S.Agnetis  v. 

22  S.Uincentii  m. 

23 


Fabiani  et  Sebasti- 

ani. 
Agnetis  v. 
Uincentii  m. 


Babilli  ep.  et  3  p. 


24  Babilli  ep.  et 

3  puerorum 

25  S.ConversioPauliap.  Conversio  Pauli  ap. 


26 
27 


Policarpi  ep. 

Joh.  Crisostomi  ep. 

Tr.  Aethelflaede  v. 


Fabiani  et  Sebast, 

Agnetis  v. 
Uincentii 
levitae  et  m. 
Emerentianae  et 
Macharii 


Conv.  Pauli  ap. 

Praejecti  m. 


28  S.Octavas  Agnetis      Oct.  Agnetis  v.  Agnetis  secundo 


Balthilde  regin. 


29  Gilde  sapientis 

30  Baltildis  regin. 

Column      I.  The  Pre-Conquest  Benedictional  of  Canterbury  cathe- 
dralHarl.  MS.  2892  has  (ft.  I29b-I32b)  benedictions 
for  SS.  Sebastian  and  Fabian,  Agnes,  Vincent,  Con 
version  of  St.  Paul,  and  Octave  of  St.  Agnes  (but 
no  benediction  for  St.  Fursey). 

Column  II.  The  Winchester  Missal  at  Havre  assigned  to  c.  1120 
is  imperfect  for  1  to  6  Jan;  it  omits  the  feasts 
printed  in  italics;  and  adds  at  25th  Project!  m. 


FEBRUARY 
BOSWORTH 


ARUNDEL  60   ARUNDEL  155 


DAY 

i       Brigidae  v. 


Brigide  v. 


Brigide  v. 


78 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL  GRADING 

CALENDARS  (XII-XVC) 

DAY 

20  4-13.  xii  lc  7,  8,  10-13. 

21  4-13.  xii  lc  7,  8,  10-13. 

22  4-13.  in  a.  7,  8,  10-13. 

23  Em.  (only)  4,  6-13.  iii  R  7,  8,  10,  12,  13. 

24 

25  4-13.  in  a.  7,  8,  10,  II,  13. 
4,  6-8,  10-13.  com  7>  I2, 

26  Policarpi  ep.  6. 

27  Jo.  Crisostomi  6. 

Juliani  ep.  4,  9-13.  iii  R  10-13. 

28  4-13.  iii  R  7,  8,  10-13. 
Juliani  ep.  5,  6,  8. 

30     Baltildis  regin.  9. 

Column  III.  Additions  in   later  hands:    9th  Adriani  abb.;    16th 

Fursei  conf.;  19th  Wlstani  ep. 
Columns  IV.  Later  entries  in  N°  7  17th  Antonii  abb.  quasi  in  alb. 
and  V.  Foreign  entries  in  N°  6:    2nd  Odilonis  abb.;    17th 

Speusippi,  Eleusippi  &  Melasippi;  28  th  Johannis 

abb;  29th  Oct.  Vincentii. 


FEBRUARY 

CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL  GRADING 

CALENDARS  (XII-XV  C) 

DAY 

i      7-13.  iiiR7,8,io,ii(tsianteIxx'),  13. 

79 


BOSWORTH 

DAY 

2  /'Yppapanti 
F.j  Domini 

(Laurentii  arep. 

3  Waerburge  v. 


5  S.Agathae  v. 
6 
iOq  (Scolasticae  v. 
■(Maerwynne 


ii 

12 


ARUNDEL  60 


PuRIFICATIO 

S.  Mariae  © 


Agathc  v. 
Uedasti  et  Amandi 


Scolastice  v. 


Eulaliae  v. 

Eormenhildae  v.     Eormenhilde  v. 

(Ualentini  Ualentini  m. 


S'{Uitalis 
16      Julianae  v. 


Julianc  v. 


20      Didimi  et  Gagi 

22  S.Cathedra  Petri  ap.  Cath.  Petri  Ap. 

in  Antiochia 

23  Mildburgae  v. 

24  F.Mathiae  ap.  Mathiani  ap.  >{« 


25 
26 

28 


ARUNDEL  155 
Purif.  S.  Mariae 

Blasii  ep.  et  ra. 

Agathae  v. 

Ued.  et  Amandi  ep. 

Scolasticae  v. 

Austroberte  v. 

Eormenhilde  v. 
Ualentini 

Julianae  v. 
Cath.  Petri  ap. 
Mathiae  Ap. 


Col. 


Col. 
Col. 


I.  Benedictions  in  Harl  MS.  2892  (ff.  i32b,  139* — 142*) 
for  Purification,  SS.  Blase,  Agatha,  Vedast  and  Amandus, 
Austroberta,  Scholastica,  Peter's  Chair,  and  Matthias. 
II.  Missal  of  c.  1 1 20  adds  Vigil  of  Purification. 
III.  hater  additions:   14th  c  Scae.  Vallantini  mar.';   17th  Sci. 
Silvini  ep.;  25th  Sci.  Ethelberti  regis. 

80 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 
CALENDARS  (XII-XV  C) 

DAY 

2    s-n- 


GRADING 


II.  7,  8,  io,  ii,  13. 


5 
6 

10 


11 

12 

J3 

14 

16 

20 
22 

23 
24 

25 
26 

28 


4-i3- 

4-i3- 
4-i3- 
4-i3- 

4-8,  10-13. 

{Sci  Ethelgari  arep.'  13. 

Valentini  4-13. 

4,  s>i-n* 

Cecilie  13. 

4-13- 

Milburge  4,  6. 
4-13- 


in  c.  7,  8,  10-13.    (13    also: 

xii  lc). 
xii  lc  8,  10,  12,  13. 
iii  R  7,  8,  10-13. 
cc.  &  1  7,  10-12;  cc.  13. 

xii  lc  7,  8, 12;  viii  lc  10, 11, 13. 


iii  R  7,  8,  io,  11,  13. 
iii  R  7,  8,  10,  13. 


xii  lc  7,  8,  10,  13;  quasi  in  a. 
11,  13;  Credo  Prefac.  12. 


in  a.   7,   8;  in  c.    10,  11,  13; 
Credo  Prefac.  12. 


*  Ethelberti  reg.'  12.  in  c.  12. 

{Sci  Ethelberti  r.  &  cf?  13.     xii  lc  13. 
Theophili  8. 
Oswaldi  r.  &  m.  13. 


Col.  IV.  Foreign  entry  in  N°  6 :  1  st  Ignatii. 


81 


MARCH 
[Wanting  in  N°_  13] 

BOSWORTH 


ARUNDEL  60         ARUNDEL  155 


DAY 
I 

2 

3 

4 
6 

7 

9 
10 

12  F.Dep.  B.  Grego- 
rii  PP. 

Leonis  pp. 


Donati  ep. 

Dep.  Ceadde  ep.     Ceaddan  ep. 

Albini  ep. 
dccc  mar. 

Perpetuae  et  Feli-    Perp.  et  Felicit. 

citatis 
Passio  xl  mar. 


Gregorii  pp.  © 


Donati  ep.3 


Perp.  et  Felicit. 


Gregorii  pp. 


Longini  qui  latus 
Christi  perforavit 

Patrici  ep. 
Eaduuardi  r.  etM. 


Eaduuardi  m. 


16      Eugenie  v. 

.7 

18 

*9 

20  F.Cuthberhti  pre-   Cuthbbrhti  ep.  ©    Cuthberti  ep. 

SULIS 

21  F.Benedicti  abb.       Benedicti  abb.   ©      Benedicti  abb. 

25  F.AdnuntiatioS.         Adnunt.  S.  Mar.  ©    Annunt.S.  Mar. 

Mariae  v. 

26  [Obitus  Ailmae- 

ri  mon.] ' 

1  On  the  zjth. — In  later  hand  (see  p.  65  above)  and  erased,  i»  at  17th  (xvi  kal.)  the  entry  *F. 
Natale  Sci  Eadwardi  Regis  et  (mar)'.  The  proper  feast  day  of  St. Edward  m.  is  the  18th  which  day 
in  B  is  occupied  with  the  entry  (as  in  G)  'Primus  dies  seculi.  Sol  in  (ariete)'.  At  the  date  number 
•xri*  is  a  reference  mark  and  in  the  inner  margin  (as  appears  from  the  photograph)  are  trace*  of 
tome  now  erased  characters. 

'  On  tbt  z6tb. — In  a  later  hand. 

1  On  the  lit. — Partly  erased  and  altered  by  a  later  hand  to  'David'. 

82 


MARCH 

CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 
CALENDARS  (XII-XV  C) 

DAY 
I 

Albini  ep.  9. 
2 

3 
4 

6  Juliani  9. 

7  4-12. 

9 

10     Agapite  5. 
12     4-12. 

15  Longini  m.  7,  8. 

16  Eugenie  v.  5. 

17 

18  5,  9,  12. 

19  Eaduuardi  r.  &  m.  4. 

20  4-12. 

21  4-12. 
25     4-12. 

26 


GRADING 


com  7;  3  R  10-12. 

II  7;  in  c.  8,  10,  n;  inc.  a.  12, 


III  12. 

xii  lc.  7,  10-12. 

II  7,  12;  in  c.  8,  10,  11. 

III  7,    8,  10  [«in  xla.  IT   10 
alia  manu\\  II  11. 


83 


BOSWORTH 


ARUNDEL  60        ARUNDEL  155 


DAY 

29  Ordinatio  Grego- 

rii  pp. 

30  Domnini 


Ordin.  Greg.  pp. 


Col.     I.  Benedictions  in  Harl.  MS.  2892  (ft.  I42b — 1461)  for  SS. 

Gregory,  Edward  m.,  Cuthbert,  Benedict,  Annunciation. 
Col.    II.  Missal  of ' c.  1120  omits  feasts  italicized. 
Col.  III.  Later  additions:    1st  Donati  altered  to  David  ep.  &  con. 

xii  lc;  2nd  Sci  Cedde  ep.  xii  lc;   14th  Officium  in  con- 

ventu  pro  patribus  et  matribus. 


APRIL 

[Wanting  in  N°.  13] 
BOSWORTH 


ARUNDEL  60         ARUNDEL  155 


DAY 

I 


2      Uualerici  cf. 


Quintini  m. 


3 
4 
8 

11 


Theodosiae  v. 
Ambrosii 
Successi  et  Solu- 
toris 


F.Guthlaci    ana- 
choritab. 

13  Eufemiae  v. 

14  S.Tiburtii  Ualeria- 

ni  et  Maximi 
16  Felicis.  Luciani 
18 


Ambrosii  ep. 


Leonis  pp. 
Guthlaci  cf. 


Tiburtii  et  Ualeri- 
ani 


Ambrosii  ep. 


Leonis  pp. 
Guthlaci 

Euphemiae  v. 
Tyburtii  et  Ualeri- 
ani 


19      Gagi  et  Rufi 


Aelfeachi  arep.  Aelfheahi  arep. 


84 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 
CALENDARS  (XII-XV  C) 

DAY 

29 


GRADING 


3° 

Stephani  9. 

Coll.  IV  Later  entries  in  N°  7:  1st  S.  David  ep.  et  confess,  xii 
and  V.  lc;  2nd  S.  Sedde  ep.  et  confess,  xii  lc;  10th  Obitus 
domini  Johannis  Bokynham  ep.  Lincoln.;  14th  Anniver- 
sarius  patrum  et  matrum  nostrarum;  1 8th  Sci  Edwardi 
regis  etmr.  II. — In  N°  10:  18th  Passio  S.  Edwardi. — In 
N°  12:  4th  Ob.  Willi.  Sellyng. 


APRIL 

CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 
CALENDARS  XII-XV  C 

DAY 
I 

Marie  Egyptiace  5. 
2 

Marie  Egyptiace  7-9. 

3 

4     4,  6-1 2. l 

8 


GRADING 


xii  lc  7,  8;  in  c.  10-12. 


11 


6,9. 


13  5>  9- 

14  4-12. 

16 

18  Vigilia  12. 


J9 


iii  R  7,  8,  10,  12. 


*  in  hac  vigilia  dicitur  Gla.  in 
exc. '  12. 


4-12  III,  7,  8,  10,  12;  ^rincip.'n. 

1  On  the  \th, — In  N°  5  Ambroie  ii  leemingly  in  miit»ke  entered  at  3rd. 


85 


BOSWORTH 

ARUNDEL  60 

ARUNDEL  1 

DAY 

20      Marcelli.  Petri 

21 

22  Leonis  ep. 

23  S.Georgii  m. 

Georgii  m. 

Georgii  m. 

24  S.Melliti  arep.  An- 
glorum 

25 
26 

"Marci  euuangl.]1 
'Letania  maior]1 

Marci  ev. 
Letania  Maiora 

Marci  ev. 
Laetania  maior 

27  Germani1 

28  Uitalis  m. 

Uitalis  m. 

Vitalis  m. 

29 
30 

Erkenwoldi  ep. 

Col.      I.  Benedictions  in  Harl.   MS.   2892   (ff.    147* — 14815)   for 

SS.  Elphege  and  Mark  evang. 
Col.    II.  Missal  of  c.    1120  omits  feasts    italicized;  adds    13th 

Eufemia. 
Col.  III.  Later  additions:  21st  Anselmi  archiep.  in  albis;  23rd  a 

late  grading  l  in  capp.'  found  in  no  other  MS. 

1  On  the  zt,th  and  zjth. — These  two   entries  at  the  25th  are  in  a  different  hand,  or  in  the 
fame  hand   at  another  time;  after  the  entry  of  Germanus  »t  the  27th  there  is  an  erasure. 


MAY 

[Wanting  in  iV?  13] 
BOSWORTH 


ARUNDEL  60        ARUNDEL  155 


DAY 


i      Natal,  ap.  Philippi   Ap.  Phil,  et  Ja-     Ap.  Phil,   et  Ja- 
et  Jacobi  '  cobi  ©  cobi 

1  On  the  1st. — To  this  entry  was  doubtless  prefixed  *S.'  now  to  me  illegible. 

86 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL  GRADING 

CALENDARS  (XII-XVC) 

DAY 

20 

21      Anselmi  arep.  5,  7,8, 11, 12.     in  a.  7,  8,  II,  12.1 

22 

23     4-12.  iii  R  7,  8;  xii  lc  10,  12;  quasi 


in  a.  13. 


24 


Wulfridi  arch.  9. 

25  4-12.  xii  lc  7,  8,  12;  in  c.  10  11. 
6,  7,  11. 

26  Cleti  9. 
27 

28  4-7,  9-12.  iii  R  7,  io,  11;  xii  lc  12. 

29  Germani  9. 

3° 

Quintini  9. 

Coll.  IV  Later  entries  in  N°  7 :  9th  Obitus  Edwardi  quarti  a.  d. 

and  V.  1483;  27th  Sithe  virginis  (at  this  day  also  an  entry  as 
to  consecration  of  David  bp.  of  St.  Asaph  and  Milo  bp. 
of  Llandaff).— -/«  N°  10:  18th  'canitur  de  S.  Elphego 
iii  lc'  (i.e.  a  vigil);  21st  Anselmi  archiep.  Cant.  De 
reliquiis  ecclesie  in  alb. — Foreign  entry  in  N°  6:  23rd 
Felicis  Fortunati  et  Achillei. 

2  On  tkezist. — In  N°  4  St.  Anselm  has  a  mere  obit:  'Ob.  pie  memorie  Anselmus  arch.';  in 
N03  5  and  6  the  entry  is:  'Anselmi  arch.';  in  Nos  7  and  8  the  feast  is  certainly  liturgical,  with 
the  grading  'in  albis';  for  N°  10  see  note  on  coll.  iv  and  v. 

MAY 

CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL  GRADING 

CALENDARS  (XII-XVC) 

DAY 

i     4-12.  in  a.  7,  8;  in  c.  io,  n. 


87 


BOS  WORTH 


ARUNDEL  60        ARUNDEL  155 


DAY 

2  Athanasii  ep. 

3  (Inuentio  s.  crucis  Inu.  s.  cruris 
F.j  Euentii  Theodoli  Alex.   Euent.  et 

(     et  Alexandri  Theodoli 

4 


Athanasii  ep. 
Inu.  s.  crucis 
Alex.   Eu.   et 
Theodoli 


6  S.  Johannis  ante 
port,  latinam 

7 

8       Uictoris  m. 


Johannis  ap.  a.  p.  1.     Joh.  ap.  a.  p.  1. 


10  S.  Gordiani  et  Epi-     Gordiani  et  Epim.      Gordianiatq.Epim. 
machi 

1 2  S.  Nerei  Achillei  et     Ner.  Ach.  et  Pancr.     Ner.  Ach.  et  Pancr. 

Pancratii 

13  Dedic.    eccl.    S. 

Mariae 

1 4  Uictoris  Quarti  et 

404  mar. 
16      Eueeniae  v. 


"s.; 


Marci  ev. 


:Et  scae  Aelfgife'    'See  Aelfgyfe  regine 


19  p    (DUNSTANI  AREP.       DuNSTANI  AREP. 


F. 


22 


Potentiane  v. 

1 


Potentianae  v.3 


1  On  the  zznJ. — In  later  hand  'Sci  ./Ethelberhti  mr'. 

»  On  the  19/A.— In  Ar.  155  after  St.  Potentiana  comes:  '  Et  Sci  DUNSTANI  EPI'.  The 
iniertion  of  Dunitan  in  the  second  place  after  Potentiana  in  a  calendar  of  the  Cathedral  must  at  once 
arrest  attention;  and  on  examination  this  entry  shews  quite  exceptional  graphic  features  as  com- 
pared with  the  ordinary  work  of  the  scribe, — the  use  of  capitals  whilst  capitals  are  not  used  for 
Augustine  or  Elphege,  and  the  use  of  a  cedille  as  sign  of  abbreviation  over  'epi'  instead  of  a  straight 
stroke.  The  exceptional  history  of  this  feast  at  Canterbury  cathedral  (see  pp.  32-33,  63-64,  above) 
seems  to  explain  these  exceptional  features;  I  consider,  then,  that  the  entry  of  Dunstan  formed 
no  part  of  the  calendar  of  Arundel  MS.  155  as  it  first  left  the  hands  of  the  scribe;  and  I  am  there- 
fore disposed  to  assign  this  calendar  to  the  last  years  of  Lanfranc.     On  the   assumption  that  the 

88 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL  GRADING 

CALENDARS  (XII-XV  C) 

DAY 

2 

3  4-12.  in  a.  7,  8,  10. 

4,  6-8,  10-12.  viii  lc  7,  11;  com  10  ['virile', 

alia  manti\ 

4  Quiriaci  5. 

Dedic.  Eccl.  Christi  4. 

6  4-12.  iii  R  7 ;  xii  lc  10;  quasi  in  a.  11. 

7  Johis.  de  Beverlaco  9. 
8 

9     Transl.  Nicolai  arch.  9. 
10     4-12.  iii  R  7,  8,  10-12. 

12     5-12.  xii  lc  7,  10-12. 

13 

14 

16     Eugeniae  5. 
18 

de  sco  Dunstano  11.  iii  R  11. 

19     Dunstani  arep.  4-12.  Ill  7,  8,  10-12. 

6,  8. 
22     Helene  9. 

entry  of  Dunstan  belonged  to  the  scribe's  first  concept,  the  date  of  the  calendar  would  be  some- 
what later.  Of  the  precise  circumstances,  steps,  date,  of  the  decline  or  eclipse  of  St.  Dunstan's 
cult  in  Canterbury  cathedral  we  know  nothing.  Nor  is  it  likely  that  after  its  revival  these  would 
be  recorded.  Osbern  and  Eadmer  have  indeed  much  to  say  as  to  Lanfranc's  supernatural  relations 
with  his  holy  predecessor;  but  these  later  narratives  cannot  do  away  with  the  formal  testimony  of 
Lanfranc's  own  Constitutions  than  which  nothing  can  be  more  positive  and  authentic.  It  is  to 
be  remembered  that  in  those  days  the  jus  liturgicum  resided  in  the  individual  bishop;  and  Anselm 
by  his  mere  fiat  could  restore  to  honour  the  liturgical  cult  of  Dunstan  which  Lanfranc,  as  hi! 
Constitutions  shew,  had  ignored  if  not  suppressed, 

L 

89 


BOSWORTH 


ARUNDEL  60   ARUNDEL  155 


DAY 

25 


Urbani  pp. 
Aldhclmi  ep. 


26  f.  augustini  arep. 
Anglor.  primi 
Germani  ep. 
Felicis  pp. 
Petronellae  v. 


28 
3° 
31 

Col. 


Urbani  pp. 


Agustini  arep.  >B 


Petronelle  v. 


Urbani  pp. 

Augustini  arep. 
Germani  ep. 
Petronellae  v. 


I.  Benedictions  in  Harl  MS.  2892  (ff.  149* — i54b)  for  SS. 

Philip  and  James, { St.  James  apostle  brother  of  the  Lord', 

St.  Philip  apostle,  Finding  of  Holy  Cross,  Vigil  of  St. 

Dunstan,  St.  Dunstan,  and  St.  Augustine. 
Col.  II.  Missal  of  c.  11  20  omits  italicized  feasts;  and  adds  3rd 

Juvenalis,  (20th)  Kthelbert  k.  and  mart. 
Col.  III.  Later  additions:  4th  Dedicatio  aecclesiae  xpi.  Cantuariae; 

9th  Translacio  sci  Andr.  ap.;    12th  Obiit  bone  memorie 


JUNE 
BOSWORTH 


ARUNDEL  60        ARUNDEL  155 


DAY 

1  S.  Nicomedis  m.         Nicomedis  m.  Nicomedis  m. 

2  S.  Marcellini  et  Petri  Marcellini  et  P  etri      Marcellini  et  Petri 

3  Herasmi  m. 

4 


Petroci  cf. 

5  Bonifatii  ep.  Bonefacii  m. 

6  Amanti  ep.  et  Luci 
8      Medardi  ep. 

Audomari 


Bonifacii  ep. 
Medardi  ep. 


90 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 
CALENDARS  (XII-XV  C) 

DAY 

25       4-8,   IO-I2. 


GRADING 


com  7,  10,  12. 


Oct.  S.Dunstani  6-8, 1 1-12.     in  a.  7,  8,  10,  11. 
26     4-12.  Ill  (?)7;  II  8,  10-12. 

28     4-12.  iii  R  7,  8,  10-12. 

30  Felicis  pp.  6. 

31  5>  6,  9. 

Theobaldus  q°  (i.  e.  probably  *  cocus ' ;  the  margin  is 
cut);  19th  etSci  Dunstani  ep. (see  note  2  page 8 8);  22nd 
Obiit  pie  memorie  Ricardus  Ambianensis  episcopus; 
25th  Octave  Sci  Dunstani. 

Coll.  IV  Later  entries  in  N°  10:  1 8  th  de  sancto  Dunstano  3  lc.  (i.  e. 

and  V.  a  vigil). — Foreign  entries  in  N°  6:  1st  Andeoli;  5th  Juvi- 
niani  lectoris;  nth  Maioli  abb.;  14th  VictorisetCorone; 
20th  Austregisili  ep. 


JUNE 

CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 
CALENDARS  (XII-XV  C) 

DAY 

1  6,  9. 
Oct  Augustini  6-8,  10-13. 

2  4,  6-13. 
Odonis  arep.  4-8,  10-13. 


GRADING 


xii  lc  7,  8,  10,  12,  13. 

com  7,  8,  13. 
II  7;  in  c.  8,  10-13. 


Ordinat.  Thome  13. 
9  (B.  soc.  que.) 


8     6  and  9  (M.  &  Gildardi). 

Transl.  Elphegi  4-8,  10-13.     II  7,  8,  10-13. 
'Sci  W.  Ebor.  ar.'  13. 


9* 


BOS  WORTH  ARUNDEL  60       ARUNDEL  155 

Day 

9  S.Primi  et  Feliciani  Primi  et  Feliciani       Primi  et  Feliciani 

10  Ded.  eccl.  S.  Maria e 

1 1  Barnabae  ap.  Barnabe  ap.  Barnabae  ap. 

12  S.BasilidisCiriniNa-  Bas.  Cir.  Nab.  ct         Bas.  Cyr.  Nab.  et 

boris  et  Nazari        Naz.  Naz. 

14  Basilii  ep. 


1 5  S.  Eadburge  v.  Eadburge  v.  © 

16  Cirici  et  Julitte 


Uiti  et  Modesti 


17  Botulfi  abb. 

1 8  S.  Marci  et  Marcel-  Marci  et  Marcelli-  Marci  et  Marcelli- 

liani  ani                                 ani 

19  S.Geruasi  etProtasii  Geruasi  et  Protasii  Geru.  et  Prothasii 
20 

2 1  Leothfredi  cf. 

22  F.Albani  m.  Albani  m.  Albani  m. 

23  S.Aetheldrythe  v.  Aetheldrithe  v.  Aetheldrythae  v. 

V(igilia)  Vigil  1  a  Vigilia 

24  F.Nativ.Joh.Bapt.  Nativ.Joh.Bapt.  ^  Nativ.  Joh.  Bapt. 
26  Q  fjohannis  et  Pauli  Johannis  et  Pauli  Johannis  et  Pauli 

(Salui  m.  Salui  ep. 

28      Leonis  pp.  Leonis  pp.  Leonis  pp. 

Vigilia  aposto-  Vigilia  Vigilia 

LORUM. 


92 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL  GRADING 

CALENDARS  (XII-XV  C) 

DAY 

9     4-9,  11-13.  com  7,  n-13. 

Transl.  Edmundi  arep.  10-     xii  lc  10;  ct  1 1;  iii  R  12. 

13- 

10 

Vigilia  13. 

11  4-13.  xii  lc  7,  8;  inc.  10,  11,  13  (13 

also:  xii  lc). 

12  4-13-  com  7,  12;  iii  lc  8,  10,  II. 

14     Basilii  ep.  et  cf.  6,  9. 
Viti  et  Modesti  12. 

4-1 1,  13.  com.  7,  11,  13. 

Oct.  Elphegi  7,  8.  10-13.        xii  lc.  7,  11-13;  iii  R  10. 

16  Ciriciet  Julitte4,6-9, 11-13.     (?)  iii  lc.  7;   iii  lc  8;   ct.    11; 

com.  12,  13. 
Transl.  Ricardi  10,  12,  13.      xii  lc.  10,  12,  13. 

17  Botulfi  abb.  5-8,  13. 

18  4-13.  iii  lc  7,  8,  10-13. 

19  4-13.  iiilc.  7,  8,  10-13. 

20  Transl.  Edwardi  r.  et  m.  9,     III  12. 

12,  13. 
21 

Siburgis  v.  13. 

22  4-13.  xii  lc  7,  8,  10-12. 

23  4-13-  iiilc  7>  IO>  "• 
7,  8,  10,  12,  13. 

24  4-13.  II  7,  8,  10-13. 

26     4,  6-13.  cc.  et  1  7;  iii  R  12. 

4-8,  10-13.  xn  k  7>  I2>  m*'  8>  l°>  H>  I3» 

28     4-13-  in  R  7>  8>  10~l3' 

7,  8,  10-13. 


93 


BOSWORTH 


ARUNDEL  60   ARUNDEL 


*SS 


DAY 


29  F.PassioPetri  prin-  Aplor.   Pbtri   et 

cins  apostolor.      Pauli  ►£ 

30  F.DecollatioPauli  Pauli  ap.  © 


Aplor.    Petri 
Pauli 

Pauli  ap. 


IT 


Col.  I.  Benedictions  in  Harl.  MS.  2892  (ff.  156*  — i6ib)  for 
Transl.  of  St.  Elphege,  SS.  Barnabas,  Etheldreda,  Vigil 
and  Nativity  of  St.  John  Bapt.,  Salvius  bp.  &  m.,  Vigil 
and  feast  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul,  alia  benedictio  de  S. 
Petro  ap.,  Commemoration  of  St.  Paul. 

Col.  II.  Missal  of  c.  1120  omits  italicized  feasts;  adds  15th 
Vitus  m. 

Col.  III.  Later  additions:  1st  Oct.  Sci  Augustini  xii  lc;  2nd  Odo- 
nis  arep.  (see  p.  29  n.  1;  the  Bodl.  MS.  Add.  C.  260 
has  at  2  June  in  small  letters,  black:  *  Odonis  archiepi. 
Marcellini  et  Petri.');  8th  Translatio  Sci  Aelfegi  arep.; 

JULY 

\_Wanting  in  N°  13] 

BOSWORTH       ARUNDEL  60   ARUNDEL  155 

DAY 

I 

2  (Trocessi  et  Mar-   Processi  et  Mar-        Suuythuni  ep. 
S.  \      tiniani  tiniani 

(Swithuni  Swithuni  ep.  ^  Processi  et  Marti- 

niani 

3  Transl. Thomaeap. 

4  Transl.  Martini 

Ordinat.  et  Tr.  Mart.    Ord.  et  Tr.  Mart. 


94 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 
CALENDARS  (XII-XVC) 

DAY 

29       4-I3. 

3°    4-i3- 


GRADING 


II  7,  8,  10,  11,  1 3 ;  Gla.  Credo 

Pref.  12. 
in  a.  7,  8,  10,  11,  13. 


9th  Translacio  S.  Edmundi;  15th  Oct.  Sci  Aelfegi; 
1 6th  Cirici  et  Julite  matris  eius,  Translacio  S.  Ricardi 
ep.  xii  lc;  20th  Translacio  Sci  Eduuardi  prin.;  25th 
Sci.  Amphibali  sociorumque  eius;  30th  Sci  Marcialis 
ep.  et  conf. 

Coll.  IV  Later  entries  in  N°  7 :  5th  Obit  of  Leonellus  Power,  1445; 

and  V.  1 6th  Tanslacio  Sci  Ricardi  ep.  xii  lc. ;  20th  Translacio  Sci 
Edwardi  regis  et  mart. — Foreign  entries  in  N°  6 :  1  st  Reve- 
riani  et  Pauli ;  1 2th  '  et  Celsi '  added  to  Basilides  etc. ; 
20th  Florentie  v.;  22nd  Consortie  v.  (in  a  later  hand 
cent.  xin). 

JULY 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 
CALENDARS  (XII-XV  C) 

DAY 


GRADING 


I 

2 

Oct.  Joh.  Bapt 
5-8,  10-12. 

4,  6-8,  10-12. 

•  4, 

6- 

■12. 

xii  lc  7,  8,  10,  11. 

viii  lc  7;  xii  lc  8,  10,  12;  quasi 

in  a.  11. 
com  10,  12. 

3 

4 

Tr.  Martini  5, 
8. 

9- 

xii  lc  8. 

Ord.  Martini  4,  6,  7,  10-12.     xii  lc  7,  10,  1 1 ;  iii  R  12. 
Hyrenei  soc.  que  eius  7,  8,     iii  R  7,  8,  10,  12;  com  11. 

10,  11, 12. 
Oct.  Apost.  1 1 . 

95 


BOSWORTH 


ARUNDEL  60   ARUNDEL  155 


DAY 

6  (Oct.  Apostolor. 

s. 

(Sexburge  v. 

7  Marine 
Aethelburgc  v. 


8      Grimboldi  mon. 
Wihtburge 
10  S.vii  fratrum 
ilS.Transl.    Benedicti 

abb. 
13  s  (Mildrythe  v. 
'{Serapionis 

14 

15  ~  JDeusdedit  arep. 

"{Trans.  Swithuni 

16  Berhtini  abb. 

17  Kynelmi  m. 
18 


Oct.  Apost. 
Sexburge  v. 

Haedde  ep. 

Grimbaldi  cf.  *b 

vii  fratrum 
Tr.  Bened.  abb. 


Tr.  Swithuni 

Kenelmi  m. 
Eadburge  v. 


8  [Oct.  Apost.] 
Sexburge  v. 


vii  fratrum 
Tr.  Bened.  ab. 

Mildrythe  v. 


Tr.  Swythuni  ep. 
Kenelmi  m. 


20  Margarete 
Wulfmari 

2 1  S.  Praxedis  v. 

22  Uuandregisili  abb. 


Wulfmari  cf. 
Margarete  v. 
Praxedis  v. 


Wulmari  cf. 
Margaretae  v. 
Praxedis  v. 


23  S.Uincentii  et  Apol-  Apollonaris  m. 
lonaris 


Apollonaris  ep  et  m. 


1  At  the  22nd  Ar.  60  has  in  a  ilightly  later  hand:  Marii  Magd.  Wandregisle  cf. 

*  At  the  6th  an  erasure  In  Ar.  1555  the  first  letter  was  seemingly  O;  doubtless  of  Oct.  Apoit* 

96 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL  GRADING 

CALENDARS  {XII-XV  C) 

DAY 

6     Oct.  Apost.  4,  6-10,  12.  xii  lc  7,  10,   11;   Gla.    Credo 

Pref.  iii  R  12. 

5,  6,  8.  iii  lc  8. 

De  S.  Thoma  11.  iii  R  de  hystoria  1 1. 

7 


Transl.  Thome  7-12.  Ill  7,  8,  10-12. 

8     Grimbaldi  4-8,  10-12.  iii  R  7;  com  10. 

Transl.  Witburge  9. 

10     4-12.  iii  lc  7,  12. 

n     4-12.  II  7,  8;  in  c.  10,  11;  III  12. 

13  4-8,10-12.  xii  lc  7,  10,  12;  quasi  in  a.  11. 

14  Oct.  Thome  7,  8  10-12.  in  a.  7,  11,  12;  xii  lc  8,  10. 

15  Deusdedit  arep.  7. 

9- 
16 

Divisio  apostolorum  12. 

17  9. 

18  l 

Oct.  Benedicti  6-8,  10-12.       xii  lc.  7,  8,  10-12. 
Arnulphi  ep.  et  m.  9. 

20  4,  6-8,  11,  12.  com.  7,  12. 

4-12.  xiilc.  7, 8, 10, 12;  quasi  in  a.  11. 

21  4-12.  iii  lc.  7,  10,  11. 
Wandregisili  abb.  8. 

22  Marie  Magd.  4-12.  in  a.  7,  8,  10,  12. 
Wandregisili    cf.    4,  6,    7,     com  7,  12. 

11,  12. 

23  4,  6-12.  xii  lc.  7;  iii  R  10-12. 


1  From  the  18th  to  the  end  of  the  month  N°  8  by  mistake  enter*  the  feasts  one  day  too 
early  (e.g.  Oct.  S.  Bened.  at  17th). 

97 

M 


BOSWORTH 


ARUNDEL  60    ARUNDEL  155 


DAY 
24 

25  p  (Jacobi  ap. 

(Cristophori  m. 

27  Septem    dormien- 

tium 

28  Samsonis 

29S.Felicis    Simplicii 
Faustini  et  Bea- 
tricis 

3oS.Abdonis  et  Senilis 

3 1       Germani  cf". 


Col. 


Cristine  v. 
Vigilia 

Jacobi  ap.  ^ 
Christophori  m. 
vii  dormientium 

Samsonis  ep. 
Pantaleonis  m. 
Fel.  S.  Faust.  B. 


Abdon  et  Sennen 


Jacobi  ap. 
Christophori  m. 
vii  dormientium 

Pantaleonis  m. 

Samsonis  ep. 

Fel.  S.  Faust,  et  B. 


Abdon  et  Sennes 
Germani  ep. 


I.  Benedictions  in  Harl.  MS.  2892  (ff.  i62a— 165")  for 
St.  Swithun,  Oct.  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul,  Translation  of 
St.  Benedict,  SS.  Mildred  and  James  ap. 

Col.  II.  Missal  of  c.  1120  is  defective  from  17th  to  22nd  July; 
omits  feasts  italicized;  adds  1st  Vigil  of  St.  Swithun, 
31st  Germanus  cf. 

Col.  III.  Later  additions:  1st  Octave  Sci  Johannis;  3rd  Translatio 
Sci  Thome  ap.;  5th  Sci  Yrenci  sociorumque eius,  Octave 
Apostolorum  xii  lc;  7th  Translacio  Sci  Thome  mar.; 
8th  Sci  Grimbaldi  conf.;  13th  Silee  apostoli;  14th  Oct. 
Sci  Thome;  1 8th  Oct.  Sci  Benedicti  (a  later  hand  adds 
the  grading  'in  alb.'  found  in  no  other  MS.);  22nd 
Mariae  Magdalenae,  Wandregisili  abb;  24th  Scae  Chri- 
stine v.  et  mar. ;  3 1  st  Sci  Neoti  abb. 


AUGUST 
BOSWORTH 


ARUNDEL  60         ARUNDEL  155 


DAY 

1      Passio  Machabe- 
orum 


Ad  uinc.  S.  Petri       Ad  uinc.  S.  Petri 


98 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

GRADING 

CALENDARS 

(XII 

-XV C) 

DAY 

24     Cristine  v. 

et  m. 

4- 

12. 

Ic  iii. 

7,  10,  11. 

Vigilia  8,  ] 

[O-12. 

25     4-12. 

in  a. 

7,  8;  in  c.  10-12 

et  Cucufatis  4,  6- 

•9> 

12.1 

com. 

7,  12. 

27     5-12. 

iii  lc. 

8,  12;  com.  10. 

28  4-12. 

9 

29  4,  6-12. 

iii  lc. 

7,  8,  10-12. 

iii  lc. 

7,  8,  10-12. 

30     4-12. 

iii  lc. 

7,  8,  10-12. 

31     4-12. 

iii  lc. 

7,  8,  10-12. 

Neoti  abb.  4,  5,  7,  8,  10-12.     com.  7. 

Coll.  IV  L«/f r  entries  in  N°  7 :   1 6th  Translatio  S.  Osmundi  ep. 

and  V.  et  conf.,  com.;  21st  an  entry  as  to  the  battle  of  Shrews- 
bury; 23rd  Obitus  dompni  J.  Sarysbury;  26th  Anne 
matris  Marie. — In  N°  10:  at  5th  *  iii  R'  is  altered  to 
f  com.  hie  canitur  de  a ',  at  6th  12  lc.  of  Oct.  Apost.  is 
altered  to  f  canitur  de  S.  Thoma'(=a  Vigil.  Thus,  on 
the  institution  of  a  vigil  for  the  Translation  of  St.  Thomas, 
Oct.  Apost.  was  transferred  to  the  5th  and  Irenaeus  re- 
duced to  a  commemoration);  22nd  Wandregisili  abb.; 
25th  Cristofori  et  Cucufatis  com.  Foreign  entries  in 
N°  6:   2 1  st  Victoris  soc.  que;  28th  Nazarii  et  Celsi. 

1  At  the  z$th  in  11  by  a  later  hand:  'Anne  in  cappis  aids'. 


AUGUST 

CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL  GRADING 

CALENDARS  (XII-XV  C) 

DAY 

i     4-13.  .        in  a.  7,  8,  10-13. 


99 


BOSWORTH 


ARUNDEL  60   ARUNDEL  155 


DAY 

Petri  ad1  [uinc]      Machabeorum  Machabeorum 
Athelwoldi  ep. 

2  S.  Stephani  ep.  Stephani  pp.  Stephani  pp. 

3S.  Inuentio    corporis  Inu.  Steph.  protom.  Inu. corporis Steph. 

Stephani  protom.  protom. 


5  S.  Osuualdi  r.  et  m. 

Oswaldi  r.  et  m. 

Osuualdi  r.  et  m. 

6  S.  Syxti  ep.  Felicissi- 

Fel.  Sixti  et  Agap. 

Syxti  Fel.  et  Agap. 

mi  et  Agapiti 
7 

Donati  ep. 

Donati  ep.  et  m. 

8  S.  Cyriaci  m. 

Ciriaci  m. 

Cyriaci  m. 

9      Vigilia 

Vigilia 

Vigilia 

10  F.  Laurentii    Ar- 

Laurentii  m.  >J< 

Laurentii   archi- 

chi  DlACONI 

diaconi 

1 1  S.  Tiburtii  m. 

Tiburtii  m. 

Tyburtii  m. 

13  S.  Yppoliti  m. 
He  (Eusebii  prb. 
'  (Vigilia 

Ypoliti  m. 
Eusebii  cf. 

Yppoliti  m. 
Eusebii  prb. 

Vigilia 

Vigilia 

15  F.Assumptio  San- 

Sanctae  Mariae 

Assumptio    San- 

CTAE MARIAE 

Assumptio  >J« 

ctae  Mariae 

1 7  S.  Octauas  Laurentii 

Oct.  Laurentii 

Oct.  Laur.  leuitae 

18  S.  Agapiti  m. 

Agapiti  m. 

Agapiti  m. 

19 

Magni  m. 

Magni  m. 

20      Ualentini 

22  S.Timothei  discipuli 
Pauli 

Tim.  et  Simphoriani 

Timoth.  et  Symph. 

23 


24  S.  (Sci   Patricii  seni- 
orisinGlaestonia' 


Audoeni  cf. 


1  On  the  1st. — A  piece  of  vellum  has  been  pasted  over  the  remainder  of  this  entry. 
IOO 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL  GRADING 

CALENDARS  (XII-XV  C) 

DAY 

7,  8,  n-13. 

2  4,  6-13. 

3  4-*3- 

Nichod[emi]  Gam [alielis] 
et  Ab[ibon]  7. 

5  4~9>  "-x3- 

6  4)  6-13. 

7  4-13- 

8  4-13. 

9  7i  8>  ".>  I2>  l3* 

Romani  m.  9. 

10  4-13. 

11  4-12. 

13  4-13- 

14  4,  6-9,  1 1-12. 

7>  I2>  *3* 

*5     4-i3- 

17  4,  6-13. 

18  4-13. 

19  4-i3- 
20 

22  4-8,  10-13. 

Oct.  Mariae  4,  6-13. 

23  Vigilia  7,  8,  n-13.1 
Timothei  9. 

24 

Audoeni  4. 

*  For  the  vigili  of  the  9th  14th  and  23  rd  in  N°  10  see  the  note  on  Column  IV. 

IOI 


com  7,  11-13. 

iiilc  7,  8,  10,  11,  13. 
xii  lc  7,  8,  10,  12,  13;  quasi  in 
a.  11. 


xii  lc  7,  8,  11-13. 
iii  lc  7,  8,  10-13. 

iii  lc  7,  8,  10-13. 
iii  lc  7,  8,  10-13. 


in  a.  7,  8,  10-12;  in  a.  s.  13. 

iii  lc  7,  8,  10-12. 
iii  lc  7,  8,  10-13. 
com  7,  8,  11,  13. 
*  iii  lc  iii  R',  7. 
Ill  7,  8,  10-13. 

com  7,  10,  11,  13;  iii  lc  8,  1 2. 
com  8,  10-13;  iii  lc  8. 
com  7.  10-13;  i"  1°  8. 

com  7,  12. 

in.  a  7,  10;  in  a.  a.  11,  13. 


BOSWORTH       ARUNDEL  60   ARUNDEL  155 

DAY 

25  F.Bartholomei  ap.1  Bartholomei  ap. 


1  [Bartholomei  ap.] 

2  [Audoeni  arep.] 


26 

27  Rufi  m.  Rufi  m. 

Hermetis  m.3 

28  S.  Hermetis  m.  Agustini  magni  Augustini  magni 

ep. 
Hermetis  m. 

29  (Dbcollatio  Joh.  Decolat.  Joh.  Bap.  Decoll.  Joh.  Bapt. 
F.j      Bapt. 

(Sabine  Sabine  v.  Sabinae  v. 

30  S.Felicis  et  Adaucti    Fel.  et  Adaucti  Fel.  et  Adaucti 

31  S.Aidani  ep. 

Pauli  ep. 

Col.  I.  Benedictions  in  Harl.  MS.  2892  (ff.  165* — I72b)  for 
St.  Peter's  Chains,  *  Ben.  eodem  die  natale  sanctorum 
Machabeorum  et  sancti  Aethelwoldi  episcopi'  (it  hence 
appears  that  the  feast  of  St.  Ethelwold  had  been  adopted 
before  the  Conquest  at  Canterbury  cathedral,  or  at  least 
some  commemoration  of  this  Winchester  saint  was  made 
at  Mass  and  doubtless  at  office),  Invention  of  St.  Stephen, 
Vigil  of  St.  Laurence,  Laurence,  Vigil  of  Assumption, 
Assumption,  Audoen,  Bartholomew,  Augustine,  Be- 
heading of  St.  John  Baptist. 

Col.     II.  Missal  of '  c.  1120  omits  italicized  feasts. 

1  On  th*  z$th. — The  entry  of  Bartholomew  in  B  is  partially  erased. 

'  On  tht  x\th  and  25//;. — These  two  names  in  Ar.  155  are  on  erasures,  the  initial  'Sci'  of  the 
original  scribe  remaining  in  both  entries.  The  case  has  been  dealt  with  in  some  detail  p.  73  a,  x 
tupra.     In  calendar  4  'Audoeni'  is  found,  as  shewn  in  Column   IV,  at  both  the  24th  and  25th. 

8  On  the  27th. — This  is  a  displacement  in  Ar.  60;  the  28th  is  the  feast  day  of  St.  Hermes  and 
to  appears  in  the  missal  of  c.  11 20  as  well  as  in  the  two  earlier  Winchester  calendars  (Vitellius 
tnd  Titut). 


102 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL  GRADING 

CALENDARS  (XII-XV  C) 

DAY 

4-13.  II  7;  in  c.  8,  10-13. 

4-8,  10-13.  II  7;  in  c.  8,  10-12;  in  c.  a.  13. 

26  Sci  Bregwini  arep.  13. 

27  4-13.  iii  R  7,  10,  12,  13. 

28  4-13.  II  7;   in  c.  8,  10,  12,   13;   in 

c.  s.  11. 

4,  6-8,  10-13.  com  7,  11. 

29  4-13.  in  a.  7,  8,  10-12;  in  a.  s.  13. 

6-8,  12.  com  7. 

30  4-13.  iiilc  7,  8,  10-13. 


Col.  III.  Later  additions:  2nd  Translatio  Sci  Albani  mr.;  20th 
Bernardi  abbatis  Clarcuallensis;  2 2d  Oct.  S.  Mariae 
in  alb. 

Coll.  IV  Later  entries  in  N°  10:  1st  Machabeorum  com.;  9th  vig. 

and  V.  canitur  ad  mandatum;  14th  vig.  canitur  de  Sea  Maria 
cum  miserere;  23rd  vigilia  canitur  ad  mandatum  (these 
are  the  Vigils  of  St.  Laurence,  Assumption,  and  St. 
Bartholomew). — Foreign  entries  in  N°6:  istEusebii;  6th 
Transfiguratio  Domini;  8th  Largi  et  Smaragdi;  nth 
Taurini;  13th  Oct.  Transfigurationis,  Radegundis  re- 
ginae;  20th  Philiberti  abb.;  25th  Genesii  et  Genesii 
Aredii;  27th  Cesarii  ep. 


103 


SEPTEMBER 
BOSWORTH 

DAY 

i      Prisci  m. 


ARUNDEL  60        ARUNDEL  155 
Prisci  m.  Prisci  m. 


2 

3 

4  Marcellini  ep. 

Transl.    Birini    et 
Cuthberhti  ep. 

5  Berhtini  cf.  Berhtini  abb. 

8  [Nativitas  San-     Nativ.  S.  Mariae  ►£« 
F.j      ctae  Mariae 

(Adriani  m. 

9  S.Gorgonii  m.  Gorgoni  m. 

10  Transl.    Athelwoldi 

ep. 

1 1  S.  Proti  et  Jacinthi      Proti  et  Jacincti 
13 


S. 


14  fExaltatio  Sanctae   Exalt.  S.  Crucis 
Crucis 

Cornelii  et  Cipri-  Corneli  Cipriani 
ani 

15  S.Nicomedis  m.  Nicomedis  m. 


1 6  S.Lucie1  et  Gemini-  Eufemie 

ani 

Lucie  et  Geminiani 

1 7  Landberhti  m. 
i9S.Theodori  arep. 

Anglorum 
20      Vigilia  Vigilia 

1  On  the  \%th. — The  'i'  of  *Lucie'   is  interlined  in  B. 


Tr.   Cuthberhti  et 

Byrini  ep. 
Bertini  abb. 
Nativ.  S.  Mariae 


Gorgonii  m. 

Proti  et  Jacincti  m. 

Exalt.  S.  Crucis 

Corneli  et  Cypriani 

Nicomedis  m. 

Euphemie 

Luce  et  Geminiani 
Landberhti  ep.et  m. 


Vigilia 


104 


SEPTEMBER 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 
CALENDARS  (XII-XV  C) 

DAY 

i     4,  5>  7,  8,  10-13. 
Egidii  4-13. 

2  Antonini  9. 

3  Ordinatio  Gregorii  4-13. 

4 

Tr.  Cuthberti  9. 


5     4-13- 

8  4-13. 

Adriani  m.  4,  6-8,  10-13. 

9  4-13. 
10 


GRADING 


com  7, 1  o,  1 2 ;  'cant,  et  lectio'  1 1 . 
xii  lc  7,8,1 0,12;  quasi  in  a.  11; 
xii  lc.  q.  i.  a.  13. 

Il7,8,i2;inc.  io,n;inc.a.  13. 


xii  lc  7,  8,  10-13. 
II  7,  8,  10,  12. 

com  7,  8,  10,  11,  13. 
com  7, 10,13;  'co.iii  R'  12. 


xii  lc  7,  8,  10-13. 
com  7.  10,  13. 


Oct.  Gregorii  6-8,  10-13. 
11      4-13. 
13     Transl.  Augustini  4-8,    10     xii  lc  7,  8,  11-13. 

-13- 
H     4-13- 


4,  6-8,  10-13. 

15  4,  5>  7>  8,  10-13. 

Oct.  Mariae  6-8,  10-13. 

16  4-8,  10-13. 


in  a.  7,  8,  10,  13;  viii  lc   12; 

xii  lc  13. 
viii  lc  7;  com  (?)  12;  cc  13. 

com  7,  11-13. 

xii  lc  7,  10,  11,  13. 

iii  R  7,  8,  10-13. 


17     4-13- 


iii  R  7,  8,  10-13. 


19  Theodori  arep.  4-8,  10-13.      x"  k  7)8, 10,1 1,13;  iii  R  12. 

20  7,  8,  11,  12.1 

1  On  the  zoth. — For  this  vigil  in  N°  10  ice  the  note  on  Col.  IV. 


N 


105 


BOSWORTH 


ARUNDEL  60   ARUNDEL  5 1 5 


DAY 


2 1  F.  Mathei  ap.  et  ev.   Mathei  ap.  et  ev.  *fr  Mathei  ap.  et  ev. 


22  S-Mauriciicumsociis  Mauricii  c.  soc. 

suis  vi  milibus. 
DC.  Ixvi 

23  Tecle  v. 
24S.Conceptio  Johan-   Cone.  J  oh.  B  apt. 

nis  Bapt. 

25  S.'Sci  Ceolfrithiabb. 

in  Glaestonia' 

Firmini  m. 

2 6  c  Sc or.  Cipriani  et  set. 

Justine  v.' 

27  S-  Cosme  et  Damiani  Cosme  et  Damiani 

29  F-DeDIC.   BASILICAE      MlCHAELIS     ARCH- 
S.   MlCHAELIS  ANG.  »J« 

^Hieronimi  prb.     Hieronimi  prb. 


Mauricii  c.  s.  suis 


Cone.  Joh.  Bapt. 


30 


Col. 


Col. 


Col. 


Cosmae  et  Damiani 

MlCHAHELIS  ARCH. 

Hieronimi  prb. 


Honorii    arep. 
Anglorum 

I.  Benedictions  in  Harl.   MS.    2892    (ft.    173* — 179*)  for 
Vigil  and  feast  of  Nativ.  of  B.  V.,  Exaltation  of  Holy- 
Cross,  Vigil  and  feast  of  St.   Matthew,  St.   Michael 
archangel,  and  St.  Jerome. 
II.  Missal  of  c.  1 120  omits  saints  italicized;  and  adds  7th 

Vigil  of  Nativity  of  B.  V.  and  8th  St.  Adrian. 
III.  Later  additions:     1st   Egidii  conf.;   3rd   Ordinatio   Sci 
Gregorii  pape;  8th  Adriani  mr.;  9th  Sci  Audomari  ep. 


OCTOBER 
BOSWORTH 


ARUNDEL  60        ARUNDEL  155 


DAT 

I      Remedii 
106 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL  GRADING 

CALENDARS  (XII-XV  C) 

DAY 

in  a.   7,    8,;  in  c.  10,  n,  13; 

Gla.  Cr.  Pref.  12. 
xii  lc  7  (?),  8,  10,  12,  13;  quasi 

in  a.  11. 


21 

4-13- 

22 

4-13- 

23 
24 

Tecle  v.  9. 
5- 

25 

26 

Firmini  ep.  9. 
Cipriane  et  Justine  9. 

27 
29 

4-13- 
4-13- 

30 

4-13- 

Honorii  arep.  7. 

xii  lc  7,  8,  10-13. 
117,8,10-13  (later  hand  III  13). 

xii  lc  7,  8,  10,  12;   in  c.s.  11; 
in  c.  xii  lc  13. 


Teruannensis;  10th  Oct.  S.  Gregorii;  13  th  Translatio 
Sci  Augustini;  15th  Oct.  S.  Mariae;  19th  Theodori 
archiep.;  25th  Sci  Firmini  Ambianensis  ep.  et  martiris. 
Coll.  IV  Later  entries  in  N°  10:  7th  canitur  de  S.  Maria  (=a 
and  V.  vigil);  20th  canitur  ad  mandatum(=  for  vigil). — Foreign 
entries  in  N° 6\  4thMarcellim.;  7thEvurtiiep.;  9thDoro- 
thei;  16th  Valerii,  Nichomedis;  24th  Andochii  Tyrsi 
etFelicis;  28thExuperi  ep.  etc.;  30th  Victoris  et  Ursi. 

OCTOBER 

CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL  GRADING 

CALENDARS  (XII-XV  C) 

DAY 

I 

IO7 


BOSWORTH 

DAY 


ARUNDEL  60      ARUNDEL  155 


Germani    Remigii 
Uedasti 


Remigii  Ved.Gcrm. 


2      Eleutherii  Quirilli 


3      Uictoris 

4 
6 


Leodegari  m.  Lcodegarii  ep  ct  m. 


7  S.  Marci  pp.  Marci  pp. 


Marci  pp. 


9& 


10 

11 
12 

13 
14S. 

r5 
16 

17 
18  S. 


19 


Iwigii  cf. 
Dionisii  Rustici  ct  Dionis.  Rust,  ct  El.  Dionisii  ep.  Rust. 
Eleutherii  prb.  et  Eleutherii 

diac. 
Paulini   hrofensis    Paulini  ep. 
ep. 


Uuilfrithi  ep.  Uuilfridi  ep. 

Calesti  pp.  Kalesti  pp. 


Nothelmi  arep. 
Lucae  ev. 


Aetheldrithe  v. 
Luce  ev. 

Justi  m. 


Calisti  pp. 


Lucae  cv. 


108 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 
CALENDARS  {XII-XV  C) 

DAY 

Germ.  Rem.  Ved.  6. 


GRADING 


Germ.  Remig.  4,  5,  7-9. 
Remig.  Germ.  10-13. 

4,  6-13. 

Thome  Heref.  ep.  11- 13. 

Francisci  cf.  9, 
Fidis  v.  et  m.  4-13. 
Transl.  Hugonis  ep.  10-13. 
4j  6-8,  10,  12,  13. 
Marci  et  Marcelli  9. 
Osithe  v.  4-8,  10-13. 

4-13- 


10  Paulini  ep.  4-8,  10-13. 

11  Nicasii  soc.que  4,  6-13. 

12  Wilfridi  ep.  4-13. 

13  Transl.  Edwardi  reg.  10-13. 

14  4-13- 

15  Wulfranni  9. 

16  Michaelis  archang.  4. 
17 

18  4-13. 


iii  R  7. 

iii  R  10,  11,  13. 

iii  R  7,8, 10;  'cant'  1 1 ;  com  12. 
xii  lc  12,  13. 


iii  R  7,  8;  viii  lc  1 1 ;  com  12. 
xii  lc  io,  12;  quasi  in  a.  1 1. 
cc  7;  cc  et  lc  10,  12. 

xii  lc  7,  8;  viii  lc  10,  11. 

xiilc7, 8,  ioj  I2)J3;  quasi  in  a, 
11. 

xii  lc  7,  8,  10-13. 

iii  R  7,  8,  10-13. 

II  7;inc.8,io,n,i3;inc.a.  12. 

III  10-13. 

iii  R  7,  8,  10-13. 


xii  lc  7,  8,  10;   in  c.  s.  11;  in 
c.  12;  in  c.  xii  lc  13. 


19     Dedic.  Eccl.  S.  Martini  de 
Dovore  8. 


109 


BOSWORTH      ARUNDEL  60   ARUNDEL  155 


DAY 

21  Hilarionis  cf. 


22      Philippiet  Eusebii 

24 

25      Crispini  et  Crispi-  Crisp,  tt  Crispiniani     Crisp,  et  Crispini- 

niani  ani 

26 

27  Gagi 

Vigilia  Vigilia  Vigilia 

28  F.Passio  Aplor.  Si-  Ap.  Simonis  et  Ju-  Ap.    Symonis    et 

MONIS  ET  JUDAE  DE  j%  JuDAE 

30  Januarii  • 

31  S.Passio  Quintini  m.   Quintini  m.  Quintini  m. 

Vigilia  Vigilia 

Col.  1.  Benedictions  in  Harl.  MS.  2892  (ff.  i79b — 183^)  for 
SS.  Denis  and  Companions,  Luke  ev.,  Vigil  and  feast  of 
SS.  Simon  and  Jude,  St.  Jude,  and  Vigil  of  All  Saints. 

Col.  II.  Missal  of  c.  11 20  omits  italicized  feasts;  adds  at  7th 
Marcellus  and  Apuleius  to  Mark,  at  8  th  Vigil  of  St. 
Denis  etc.,  and  at  16th  Octave  of  St.  Denis  etc. 

Col.  III.  Later  additions:  2nd  Sci  Thome  ep.  xii  lc;  6th  See  Fidis 
v.  et  mr.,  Translacio  Sci  Hugonis  ep.  xii  lc;  7th  Osythae 
v.  et  mr.;  10th  Paulini  ep.  et  cf.;  nth  Nicasii  socio- 
rumque  eius;  12th  Sci  Wilfridi  ep.  et  cf.;  21st  Ordi- 
natio  Sci   Dunstani  arep. 


no 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL  GRADING 

CALENDARS  (XII-XVC) 

DAY 
21 

Ordinate  S.  Dunstani   4-8,     II  7,  8  10-13. 
10-13. 
22 

xi  milium  virg.  9. 

23  Romani  arep.  9. 

24  Felicis  ep.  9. 

25  4)  6-13.  in  R  7,  10-13. 


26 

Cuthberti  arep.  5. 
Celebratio  Oct.  S.  Dunstani 

11. 

27 
28 

7,  8,  11,  12. 
4-13. 

30 

31 

4-13- 

7,  8,  10-13. 

in  a.   7,   8;  in  c.   10,  11,  13. 

iii  R  7,  8,  10  11,  13. 

Coll.  IV  Later  entries  in  N°  7 :  2nd  Sci  Thome  Herefordens.  x  [ii 
and  V.  lc]  ;  6th  Translacio  Sci  Hugonis  x  [ii  lc] ;  13th  Trans- 
lacio  S.  Edwardi  reg.  et  confess.;  19th  S.  Frideswyde 
virginis  xii  lc  quasi  in  albis. — In  N°  10:  Sci  Tho.  ep.  et 
confess,  viii  lc;  26th Oct. Sci  Dunstani;  27th  Vigilia. — 
Foreign  entries  in  N°  6:  7th  Sergi  et  Bachi;  i3thGeraldi; 
19th  Aquilini;  20th  xi  mil.  virg.;  23rd  Leothadii  ep. 
et  cf.,  Theodorici  m.;  29th  Teuderii  cf. 


Ill 


NOVEMBER 
BOSWORTH 


ARUNDEL  60       ARUNDEL  155 


DAY 


i  F.Celebratio   Om-    Sollempnitas 
nium  Sanctorum      Omn.  SS.  fj< 


2      Rumwaldi  cf. 


Omnium    Sancto- 
rum 
Cesarii  m. 
Eustachii  cum  soc.     Eustachii  soc.  que 

eius 


Rumwaldi  cf. 


Byrnstani  ep. 


4      Pcrpetuae  v. 

6 

8  S.iiii  Coronatorum     Quattuor  Coron. 


9  S.Theodori  m.  Theodori  m. 

ioS.Justi  arep.  Anglo- 
rum 
11  p  (Martini  ep.         Martini  ep.  £< 

'(Menne  m.  Menne  m. 

13  S- Bricii  ep.  Bricii  ep. 

15  Secundi 

Mahloni  cf. 

16  Augustini 


Quinque    Corona- 
torum 
Theodori  m. 


Martini  ep. 
Mennae  m. 
Bricii  ep. 


112 


NOVEMBER 

CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL  GRADING 

CALENDARS  (XII-XV  C) 

DAY 

i     4-13.  II  7,  8;  III  10-13. 


2     4-8,  10-13.  i"  R  7>  8>  10-13. 

Commem.  fidelium  10. 
Commem.  animarum  9,  13. 

3 

Vulganii  cf.  4-8,  10-13.  xii  lc  7,  8,  10,  12;  quasi,  in  a. 


4 


11;  xii  lc  quasi  in  a.  13. 


6     Leonardi  4-8,  10-13.  xii  lc  7,  10,  12;  quasi  ina.  11; 

xii  lc.  quasi  in  a.  13. 
8     (Quatuor)  4-13.  iii  R  7,  8,  10-13. 

iii  R  7,  8,  10-13. 


II 7;  inc. 8,11,13;  xiilc  10,12. 

com  7,  11,  12. 

xii  lc  7,8,10,12,13;  viii  lc  11. 


16 

Ordinatio  Elphegi  4-8,  in  a.  7,  10-13. 

10-13. 
Aeluriciarep.etcf. 6^7,8, 12.     com  7. 

1  OntheiGtb. — In  N°  6  the  entry  is  'i^Elfrici  anchor.'  It  is  probable  that  the  writer  of  the  calendar 
here  made  some  confusion  between  the  archbishop  and  /Elfric  the  hermit  of  Haselbur/  Bryan  in 
Dorsetshire  who  in  the  second  half  of  the  twelfth  century  seems  to  have  enjoyed  a  more  than 
local  repute.  He  died  about  half  a  century  before  the  calendar  was  written.  But  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  the  archbishop,  not  the  anchorite,  is  intended  to  be  designated  at  this  day  whatever 
be  the  mistake  of  the  scribe. 

"3 


9 

IO 

4-i3- 

ii 
*5 

4-13- 

4,  6-8,  10-13. 

4-8,  10-13. 
Macuti  ep.  9. 

BOSWORTH 

DAY 

1 8       Romani  m.  et  Ba- 
rali  pueri 

20 

21       Gelasii  pp. 


ARUNDEL  60       ARUNDEL  155 
Aniani  ep. 

Oct.  Martini 


Eadmundi  reg.  et  m.  Eadmundi  reg. 

et  m. 


22  S.  Ceciliae  v.  Cecilie  v. 

23  F. Clementis  pape      Clementis  M.  >J| 


24  S.  Crisogoni  m. 

25 


Crisogoni  m. 


26 
29 


<Sci  S'1 

Saturnini  m.  Saturnini  m. 

VlGILIA  VlGILIA 

30F.PASS10  Andreae    Andree  ap.  ^ 

AP. 


Ceciliae  v. 
Clementis  ep.  et  m. 
Felicitatis  v. 
Chrisogoni  m. 


Saturnini  m. 
Vigilia 
Andreae  ap. 


Col. 


I.  Benedictions  in  Harl.  MS.  2892  (ff.  183*— i88a)  for  All 
Saints,  St.  Martin,  t  de  Presentatione  sancte  Marie ', 
SS.  Cecily,  Clement,  Vigil  and  feast  of  St.  Andrew. 

Col.  II.  The  Missal  of  c.  1120  omits  italicized  feasts;  and  adds 
1  st  Caesarius,  23rd  Felicitas  m. 

Col.  III.  Later  additions:  3rd  Sci  Wlganii  conf.;  6th  Lconardi 
conf.;  1 6th  Ordinatio  Sci  Aelfegi  archiep.;  17th  Ed- 
mundi  archiep.  in  cappis;     1 8th  Octave  Sci  Martini: 

x0n  the  26M — There  is  apparently  no  erasure  here  in  B.     In  G  the  entry  at  this  day  is:  'Sci 
Saturnini  Petri  et  AmatonV. 


114 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL  GRADING 

CALENDARS  (XII-XV  C) 

DAY 

17     Aniani  ep.  6. 

Eadmundi  arep.  10-13.  in  c.  10-13. 

18 

Oct.  Martini  6-8,  10-13.  xii  lc  7,  8,  10-13. 

19  Ronani  cp.  4-8,  10-13.  x^  k  7i8>IO>I2>  quasi  in  a.  11, 

13- 

20  4-7,1  9-13.  xii  lc  7,  10-13. 


21 


Oblatio  S.  Marie  4,  6-8,  11     in  c.   11,  12;  'in  c.  iii  R'  13; 


-13- 

(7,  10  illegible) 

22 

4-8,  10-13. 

xii  lc  7,  8,  10-13. 

23 

4-9,  11-13. 

xii  lc  7,8,12;  quasi  in  a.  11,13. 

4,  6-8,  13. 

com  7. 

24 

4-I3-. 

iii  R  7,  10-13. 

25 

Katerine  v.  et  m.  4-13. 

xiilc  7,  8,  10,  12;  quasi  in  a.  n; 
'xii  lc  al.'  13. 

26 

Lini  9,  13. 

29 

4-13- 

7,  8,  10-13. 

iii  R  7,  11,  13. 

30 

4-13- 

II  7,  8,  11-13;  III  10. 

19th  Ronani  ep.  et  conf.;   21st  Oblacio  See  Marie;  25th 

Katerinae  virg.  (and  in  a  yet  later  hand  'in  capp.')      :«•' 

Coll.  IV  Later  entry  in  N°  7:  25th  a  later  grading  'in  capp.'  is 

and  V.      given  for  St.  Catherine,  found  elsewhere  only  in  a  late 

addition  to  N°  3. — Foreign  entries  in  N°  6:  Lantini  ab., 

Cesarii  Benigni  Valentini  et  Hylarii  ep.;    7  th  Austre- 

-      monii  ep.  et  cf.;  8th  Oct.  Omnium  SS.;  16th  Eucherii 

ep.;   17th  Gregorii  cf.;   19th  Odilonis  ab.;  26th  Petri 

ep.  et  m.;  27th  Vitalis  et  Agricolae. 

1  On  the  20th. — In  N°  8  there  it  a  displacement  of  the  entriei  of  the  20th  to  the  25th;  Edmund 
k.  and  m.  it  omitted  and  the  feaits  of  the  zi»t  to  the  25th  are  entered  at  the  20th  to  the  24th. 


"5 


DECEMBER 

[1-19  Dec.  wanting  in  N°  10] 

BOSWORTH      ARUNDEL  60   ARUNDEL  155 


DAY 

i      Candidac  v. 


Crisanti  et  Darie  v. 


2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7  S.  Oct.  Andreae  ap.    Oct.  Andree 

8 


Claudii  Felicis 


Delfini  Trofimi 


Dep.  Birini  ep. 
Benedicti  abb. 

NlCOLAI   EP. 


Byrini  ep. 
Transl.  Bened.  abb. 


Oct.  Andreae  ap. 


10 

1 1 

13  S.Luciae  v. 


Oct.  Birini 

Damasi  pp. 
Lucie  v. 
Judoci  cf.  © 


14      Spiridionis  ep. 

1 6      Uictoris  et  Uicto- 
riae 


Maximi  prb. 


Damasi  pp. 
Luciae  v. 
Judoci 


20  Vigilia 

2 1  F.PassioThomae  ap.  Thome  ap.  ©  Thomab  ap. 

23  Syxti  et  Apollona- 

ris 

24  Vigilia  Dni.  nri.   Vigilia  Vigilia 

NATALIS 


116 


DECEMBER 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL  GRADING 

CALENDARS  (XII-XVC) 

DAY 

I 

Crisanti  et  Dariae  6. 

Regressio  S.  Thomac  n.         in  a.  a.  n. 
2     Regressio  S.  Thomae  de  e-     in  c.  a.  12;  in  c.  13, 
xilio  12,  13. 


4     6. 


5 

6     Nicolai  ep.  4-9,  11-13. 

1        A.    6-Q.    I  I.-I1. 


in 


i.s.  II,  13. 


._  a.  7,  8,  12;  in  a. 

7  4,  6-9,  11-13.  xiilc  7,  8,  12. 

8  Conceptio  S.  Marie  4,  7,  9,     in  c.  11;  *  in  c.  a.  iii  R'  13. 

11-13. 
10 


Eulaliae  9. 

11     4>  5>  7-9>  H-I3- 
13     4-9,  11-13. 

4,  7,  8,  11,  12. 

Eadburge  4,  7,  8,  11-13. 

14 

15 

16 

Barbare  v.  5-9,  11- 13. 

20  7,  8,  10-13. 

21  4-13. 

23 

24     7,  8,  10-13. 


com  7,  12;  iii  R  11  13. 

xii  lc  7,  8,  11,  12. 
com  7,  11,  12. 
com  7,  n-13. 


com  7,  13;  iii  R  12. 
II  7;  in  c.  10,  11,  13. 


1 17 


BOSWORTH      ARUNDEL  60    ARUNDEL  155 

DAY 

25  (F.)  JNativitasDni.  Nativ.  D.  n.  J.  C.»5<  Nativ.  Dni. 

JAnastasiae1 

26  F.  Stephani  protom.  Stephani  protom.©  Stephani  protom. 

27  'A'3  JOHANNIS  EV.  ^  JOHANNIS  AP.  ET  EV. 

28F.Necatio    Infan-    Innocentum  »i<  Innocentum 


TIUM 


3  ' 


29 

31  S.Siluestri  pp.  Siluestri  pp. 

Col.  I.  Benedictions  in  Harl.  MS.  2892  (ff.  i89a— 190*,  126* — 
1 29s1)  for  St.  Birinus.  (see  what  is  said  as  to  St.  Ethelwold 
at  1  Aug.  above),  Conception  of  B.  V.  ,Lucy,  Thomas  ap., 
Stephen,  John  ap.  et  ev.,  Innocents,  Silvester.  A  later 
hand  has  added  in  the  margin  at  f.  129s:  *  Benedictio 
de  sanctoThoma  [that  is,  the  archbp.]  sumatur  de  sancto 
Aelfego  que  est  post  Annuntiationem  Dominicam.' 

Col.  II.  Missal  of  c.  1120  is  imperfect  for  24th  to  28th;  omits 
italicized  feasts;  adds  8th  'Conceptio  sanctae  Mariae', 
31st  Silvester. — Before  the  mass  of  '  Dep.  S.  Byrini '  is 

1  On  the  2$th.— Possibly  in  another  hand. 

'  On  the  2jth. — The  feast  of  St.  John  has  been  erased  in  B;    the  letter  'A*  with  which  the 
entry  began  alone  remains  with  (as  at  25th)  a  trace  of  the  feast  designation  *F\ 
3  On  the  $oth. — In  Ar.  155  this  <S '  is  followed  by  an  erasure. 


8ll 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL  GRADING 

CALENDARS  (XII-XV  C) 

DAY 

25  4,  6-13.  Ill  7,  8,  10-13. 
Anastasie  6-8.  com  8. 

26  4,6-13.  II  7,i2;inc.8,io;inc.a.  11,13. 

27  4,  6-13.  II  7,  8,  10-13. 

28  4,6-13.  II  7,  i2;inc.8,io;inc.s.n,i3. 

29  Thome  arep.  ct  m.  5-13.  Ill  8,  10-13. 

31      Silvestri  pp.  4,  6-12.  xii  lc  7,  8,  10-13. 

the  direction  of  a  mass  *  ii  Kal.  no.  Sept.  Translatio 
sancti  Byrini  episcopi';  an  evident  blunder. — The 
masses  or  the  20th  to  the  28th  are  now  missing. 

Col.  III.  Later  additions:  2nd  Regressio  Sci  Thome  martiris  in 
alb.;  6th  Nicholai  ep.  et  cf.;  8th  Concepcio  See  Marie 
in  cappis;  13th  Edburgis  v.;  14th  Sci  Folquini  ep. 
Tervannensis;  16th  See  Barbare  virg.  et  mr.;  29th 
Passio  Gloriosi  Martyris;  31st  Sci  Silvestri  ep.  et  con- 
fessoris. 

Coll.  IV  Later  entries  in  N°  6:  2nd  Regressio  Sci  Thome.  In  capp. 

and  V.  alt.  The  same  grading  is  given  by  a  later  hand  in  Bodl. 
MS.  Add.  C.  260. — Foreign  entries  in  N°6:  9th  Siri 
ep.;  10th  Eulalie  et  Valerie;  13th  '  Austroberte '  (for 
'Autberti');  31st  Saviniani  et  Potentiani. 


II9 


In  regard  to  the  foregoing  Table  (which  gives  only  a  practical 
print  not  an  edition)  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  value  of 
calendars  as  evidence  of  practice  varies  greatly,  and  sometimes 
depends  on  the  idiosyncrasies  of  the  particular  scribe.  This  may 
appear  clearly  enough  on  a  scrutiny  of  the  Table.  The  scribe  of 
N°  5  for  instance,  writing  it  would  seem  about  the  year  1200  has 
preferences  for  saints  dear  to  (then)  modern  devotion  but  passes 
over  many  a  name  of  ancient  martyr  venerable  no  doubt  but  now 
forgotten,  whose  only  claim  to  retention  in  the  calendar  is  an 
unbroken  tradition. 

Thus  this  scribe  omits  feasts  on  2, 16,26  June,  6,23,29  July, 
the  actual  liturgical  commemoration  of  which  in  the  church  of 
Canterbury  in  his  day  is  not  open  to  doubt.  The  omission  then 
in  this  calendar  of  St.  Nicasius  at  1 1  October  or  of  the  Oblation 
of  St.  Mary  on  2 1  November  would  not  of  itself  be  argument  or 
evidence  that  these  feasts  were  not  then  kept  in  that  church.  Or 
again, N°  9  shews  as  many  as  thirty  foreign  entries  intruded  into  the 
genuine  calendar;  although  several  of  these  are  found  in  the 
calendar  of  the  Bosworth  Psalter  (B)  they  have  nothing  to  do  with 
that  ancient  tradition;  more  than  half  are  found  in  the  Sarum 
calendar  and  perhaps  are  borrowed  from  thence;  but,  as  the  feast 
of  St.  Francis  may  indicate,  the  choice  of  such  insertions  is  due 
rather  to  the  private  fancy  of  the  copyist  and  any  name  may 
actually  be  drawn  by  him  from  any  quarter. 

N°  4,  the  calendar  of  the  Eadwine  Psalter,  shews  the  same 
kind  of  omissions  and  insertions.  The  absence  of  the  feasts  of 
the  Purification  (2  Feb.)  SS.  Nereus,  Achilleus  etc.  (12  May), 
Swithun  (2  July)  and  the  Machabees  (1  Aug.),  is  due,  there  seems 
no  room  for  doubt,  to  mere  careless  omission.  On  the  other 
hand  the  feasts  enumerated  p.  30  n.  1  above  are,  with  one  or  two 
exceptions  absent  from  this  calendar  as  well  as  from  the  Bodleian 
MS.  Add  C.  260.  This  shews  that  at  Canterbury  as  at  Winchester 
the  calendar  of  the  cathedral  was  revised  and  expurgated  in  the 
first  half  of  the  twelfth  century,  by  way  of  omission  of  elements 
venerable  no  doubt  but  now  no  longer  the  vogue ;  such  as  that  group 
of  ancient  hermits  that  was  still  so  conspicuous  a  feature  in  B. 
But  Canterbury,  as  compared  with  "Winchester,  shews  a  certain 
ruthlessness  in  reform  quite  in  keeping  with  the  original  manner 
of  Lanfranc.    The  spirit  of  mildness  and  conservatism  evidenced 

120 


at  Winchester  is  doubtless  to  be  traced  to  the  influence  of  prior 
Godfrey  (a  sort  of  compatriot  it  might  be  said  of  the  monk  Gosce- 
lin  at  Canterbury)  to  whom  is  really  and  rightfully  due  so  much  of 
that  meed  of  laud  and  liturgical  renown  given  so  gratuitously  and 
in  such  abundant  measure  by  our  late  ecclesiastical  antiquaries 
and  legendaries  to  St.  Osmund  but  by  Osmund's  contemporaries 
(as  the  texts  of  William  of  Malmesbury  shew)  to  Godfrey  of 
Cambray. 

Whatever  the  particular  minor  defects  that  attach  to  some  of 
the  calendars  used  in  the  foregoing  Table  either  by  occasional 
omission  of  names1  or  especially  vigils  or  octaves,  when  it  is  taken 
as  a  whole  there  is  practically  no  risk  of  confusing  extraneous 
elements  with  the  genuine  constituents  of  the  calendar  of  Canter- 
bury cathedral;  the  persistence  of  tradition  and  the  mention  of 
gradings  will  commonly  decide.2 

It  is  impossible  here  even  to  indicate  the  many  items  of  interest 
or  starting-points  of  enquiry,  which  such  a  Table  as  the  foregoing 
offers ;  but  he  who  seeks  will,  I  think,  find.  I  may,  however  dwell 
for  a  moment  on  one  or  two  of  the  less  obvious.  There  is  the  enig- 
matical St.  Ronan  of  1 9  November  peculiar  to  Canterbury  cath- 
edral; who  or  what  is  he?  and  how  does  he  come  to  be  here?  The 
twelve  lessons  read  at  Canterbury  for  the  feast  are  not  seemingly 
extant;  and  away  from  books  and  libraries,  I  do  not  know  how 
our  English  hagiologists  have  (if  at  all)  settled  the  matter.  But  we 
may  now  take  note  in  the  old  calendar  of  Canterbury  cathedral  B 
of  the  feast  of  the  Antiochene  martyr  Romanus  with  the  boy  Baralus 
(an  entry  itself  interesting  when  compared  with  the  corresponding 
entry  in  G).  Romanus'  day  however  in  B  and  G  is  18  Nov.,  not 
as  Ronan's  in  the  Canterbury  calendars  the  19th.  The  earliest 
appearance  of  'St.  Ronan'  to  my  knowledge  is  in  the  calendar 
Bodl.  MS.  Add.  C  260,  which  would  carry  back  his  cult  at 
Canterbury  cathedral  to  the  perhaps  middle  of  the  twelfth  century, 
or  it  might  be  even  somewhat  earlier.  Whilst  found  in  all  later 
calendars  at  the  19th,  Ronan's  feast  is  in  this  Bodley  MS.  assigned 

1  For  instance  the  scribe  of  N°  10  omits  St. Clement  (23  Nov.);  of  N°  13  Tiburtius  (11  Aug.) 
*  This  suffers  possible  exception  in  the  case  of  three  entries  in  N°4:  St.  Milburga  (23  Feb.) 

found  also  in  N°  6,  St.  Edward  k.  and  m.  (19  Mar.),  and  the  date  of  St.  Julian  of  Le  Mans  (27 

Jan.). 

121 
P 


bv  the  original  hand  to  the  i  8th ;  but  it  is  also  entered  by  a  later 
hand  at  the  19th  which  had  been  hitherto  blank.  What  had 
happened  to  cause  this  shifting?  Was  it  the  adoption  at  Canter- 
bury of  the  Octave  of  St.  Martin?  However  this  may  be,  I  am 
disposed  to  view  'St.  Ronan  the  bishop'  as  a  revival  (by  a  process 
familiar  to  those  who  deal  with  early  martyrologies  and  calendars) 
in  a  slightly  different  guise  of  that  Antiochene  martyr  Romanus 
who  appears  in  G,  and  in  B  following  G.1 

The  peculiar  mode  of  designating  the  grading  of  feasts  at 
Canterbury  is  another  item  which  should  be  touched  on  here. 
A  certain  number  of  additions  made  by  later  hands  in  the  calendar 
of  Arundel  MS.  155  were  never  incorporated  in  the  official 
calendar  of  Christ  Church  Canterbury.  They  are  given  in  the 
notes  on  the  third  column  of  the  Table.  Among  them  are  the 
following:  17  Feb.  Sci  Silvini  epi;  22  May  Obiit  pie  memorie 
Ricardus  Ambianensis  episc;  13  July  Silee  apli;  9  Sept.  Sci 
Audomari  epi  Teruannensis;  25  Sept.  Sci  Firmini  Ambianensis  epi 
et  martiris;    13  Dec.  Sci  Folquini  epi  Teruannensis. 

St.  Firmin  the  patron  of  the  cathedral  of  Amiens  and  the  obit 
of  Richard  of  Gerberoy  bishop  of  Amiens  (1205-12 10)  first  attract 

1  The  same  sort  of  transformation  lies,  I  take  it,  behind  the  feast  of  the  'Ordination  of 
St.  Augustine  apostle  of  England'  kept  at  St.  Augustine's  on  16  Nov.  from  at  least  about  the 
middle  of  the  thirteenth  century  and  with  the  high  grade  of  II.  The  direct  cause  of  the  institution 
of  the  feait  may  probably  have  been  the  feast  of  the  Ordination  of  St.  Elphege  kept  on  this  day  at  the 
cathedral  from  at  least  about  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century  (Bodl.  MS.  Add.  C  260)  and 
seemingly  at  first  at  St.  Augustine's  also  (the  St.  Augustine's  calendar  in  Ashmole  MS.  1525, 
of  about  1 200-1 220,  had  originally  at  16  Nov.  the  feast  of  the  Ordination  of  St.  Elphege 
which  has  been  erased).  The  inducement  to  the  substitution  of  Augustine  for  Elphege  I  conceive 
to  be  the  unattached  'Augustine'  found  in  B  and  G  at  16th  Nov.  who  is  no  other  than  one  of 
that  group  of  Capuan  or  Campanian  saints  and  martyrs  with  whom  people  were  well  acquainted 
in  England  in  the  seventh  century.  This  Augustine'*  name  with  that  of  Felicitas  occurs  in  St. 
Willibrord's  calendar  Paris  B.  N.  MS.  Lat.  10837  as  well  as  in  his  martyrology;  and  in  the  ca- 
lendar of  Bodl.  Digby  MS.  63,  which  may  date  from  the  close  of  the  ninth  century,  is  an  erased 
entry  that  began  'ag'  and  ended  'ni'  and  can  hardly  have  been  any  other  than  'Agustini'.  But 
we  may  not  give  to  the  monks  of  St.  Augustine's  the  credit  of  having  been  the  first  to  effect  the 
transformation;  already  in  the  Irish  martyrology  of  Oengus  the  Culdee,  a  work  now  assigned  to 
about  the  year  800,  we  find  at  16  November  this  Augustine  the  saint  of  Capua  turned  into 
Augustine  the  first  archbishop  of  the  English,  thus:  'The  train  of  Augustine  the  bishop  who  uied 
to  love  best  a  three  days'  fast;  great  sore  grief  overwhelmed  them,  forty  beautiful  pious  ones'. 

122 


attention;  then,  the  Terouanne  group,  St.  Silvinus,  St.  Folquin, 
and  St.  Omer  at  9  September.  These  entries  are  in  the  same  kind 
of  neat  hand;  they  seem  to  me  to  be  memories  of  the  exile  of  the 
community  of  Christ  Church  Canterbury  in  the  reign  of  king  John, 
1207-12 1 2.  Of  this  exile  there  are  interesting  particulars  in  the 
1  Chronica  Andrensis ',  in  Mon.  Germ,  hist.,  SS.  xxiv  740-741,  cf. 
737;  the  author  tells  us  that  the  Canterbury  monks  were  dispersed 
in  various  monasteries  etc.  not  merely  of  the  diocese  of  Terouanne 
just  opposite  the  English  coast,  but  also,  he  says,  of  l  France '. 
I  do  not  know  whether  any  historical  notice  exists  connecting  any 
of  these  exiles  with  Amiens;  but  such  relations  with  Amiens  have 
left  a  permanent  record  not  merely  in  the  entries  just  cited  from 
Arundel  155,  but  in  every  subsequent  calendar  of  Canterbury  cath- 
edral, and  of  St.  Augustine's  also.  These  two  stand  alone,  so  far 
as  I  know,  among  the  English  churches  in  using  the  Roman 
numerals  I,  II,  III,  (and  at  St.  Augustine's  IIII)  to  distinguish 
the  gradings  of  the  greater  feasts.  The  Jesuit  C.  Guyet,  who 
knew  the  French  mediaeval  calendars  really  well,  states  on  the 
authority  of  a  'vetustissimum  calendarium'  cf  the  church  of 
Amiens,  that  Amiens  anciently  followed  the  same  mode  of  grading 
such  feasts:  I,  II,  III,  IIII,  (Heortologia,  Urbini,  1728,  p.  165); 
and  from  his  account  Amiens  would  seem  to  have  been  the  only 
church  in  France  which  did  so.  A  comparison  of  the  gradings 
of  Lanfranc  with  those  given  in  the  Table  will  shew  these  latter 
not  to  derive  from  Lanfranc.  In  the  circumstances  it  seems  more 
probable  that  Canterbury  borrowed  this  mode  of  designating  high 
grade  feasts  from  Amiens  than  that  Amiens  borrowed  from  Canter- 
bury, or  that  it  was  invented  by  each  independently.  It  may  be 
added  that  St.  Silas  the  apostle  and  St.  Silvinus  are  both  found  in 
the  mediaeval  calendars  of  Amiens  (Corblet,  Hagiographie  du  diocese 
cTAtnienSy  iv  612). 

One  more  remark  must  be  made:  it  concerns  the  popular  cult,— 
popular  at  least  among  some  members  of  the  Christ  Church  com- 
munity— of  several  of  the  earlier  archbishops  of  Canterbury,  with 
one  or  two  other  domestic  worthies,  which  arose  or  was  propagated 
in  the  fourteenth  century.  It  might  have  been  thought  that  with 
the  accumulated  glory  implied  in  such  a  roll  of  saints  as  Augustine, 
Theodore,  Odo,  Dunstan,  Elphege,  Anselm,  Thomas,  with  their 

123 


multiplied  Ordinations,  Translations,  and  Octaves,  the  most  ardent 
or  zealous  spirit  might  have  been  content.  But  this  was  not  so.  We 
accordingly  find  in  the  Bodl.  MS.  Add.  C  260  entered  in  later  hand 
the  following:  12  Feb.  'Sci  Ethelgari  arepi';  24  March  'Sci 
Wulfredi  arepi';  12  May  'Sci  Athelardi  arepi';  20  June  'Siburgis 
virg.';  30  June  'Sci  Athelredi  arepi';  26  Aug.  'Sci  Bregwini 
arepi';  29  Aug.  'Sci  Feologildi  arepi';  26  Oct.  'Sci  Cuthberti 
arepi '.  The  near  neighbourhood  of  St.  Augustine's  may  to  some 
extent  have  been  an  inducement  to  multiply  in  the  way  of  holy 
rivalry  the  saintly  glories  of  Christ  Church.  One  specimen  at 
least  of  such  private  devotion  and  zeal  in  this  cause  survives  in 
Sloane  MS.  1939,  a  little  vellum  book  of  the  fifteenth  century;  a 
short  chronicle  to  1422  at  the  end  of  the  volume,  and  a  list  of 
kings  to  the  coronation  of  Henry  VI  in  1429,  approximately  fix 
its  date.     At  f.  105  is  the  following: 

ORATIO  AD  OMNES  SANCTOS  QUORUM  CORPORA 
IN   CANT[UARIENSI]   CONTINENTUR  ECCLESIA 

Sol  Anglorum  splendens  [Thomas,  erased'}  miles  invictissime, 
funde  preces  summo  Patri,cumtuo  collegio,  pro  devotis  tuis  servis 
nobis  lapsis  crimine,quopossimus  promereri  per  vos  culpe  veniam, 
huius  viteque  [so  MS.]  labore  terminato  gloriam. 
ve!  Gloriosi  martires  confessoresque  splendidi  Christi  intercedite 
pro  nostra  omniumque  salute.  R.  Ut  digni  effic[iamur]  p[ro- 
missionibus]  Christi. 

Oratio.  Omnipotens  sempiterne  Deus  cuius  inefFabili  providentia 
gloriosi  martires  [Thomas  erased}  Alphegus,  Blasius,  Salvius, 
confessoresque  tui  lucidi  Dunstanus,  Odo,  Wilfridus,  Anselmus, 
Audoenus,  Cuthbertus,  Athelardus,  Bregwynus,  Plegmundus, 
Alfricus,  Athelgarus,  Ciricus,  Wulfredus,  Aethelredus,  Wulfel- 
mus,  Celnothus,  Fleogildus,  Athelmus,  Wulganius,  celeberrima- 
que  virgo  Syburgis  necnon  et  ceteri  quorum  reliquie  in  Cantua- 
riensi  continentur  ecclesia,  preclare  vite  mentis  sanctorum  tuorum 
collegio  sunt  ascripti,  presta  quesumus  ut  quorum  memoriam  in 
terris  recolimus  triumphalem  eorum  precibus  continuis  mereamur 


124 


in    terra  vivencium  speciem   tue   celsitudinis   contemplari.     Per 
Dominum.1 

Besides  the  cathedral  calendars  Mr.  S.  C.  Cockerell  has  com- 
municated to  me  two  calendars  of  St.  Augustine's,  of  the  early- 
part  of  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries  respectively,  in 
the  later  of  these  the  feast  of  St.  Nothelm  is  revived  at  1 7  Oct. 
with  the  Grade  of  I.  I  remember  also  two  at  the  British  Museum 
with  a  good  deal  of  characteristic  St.  Augustine's  matter  though 
not  seemingly  practical  calendars  of  that  monastery.  When  these 
and  others  that  may  be  extant  are  all  brought  together  and  com- 
pared it  may  be  possible  to  determine  whether  or  how  far,  the 
calendar  of  St.  Augustine's,  whilst  retaining  its  own  marked 
character,  may  have  been  influenced  by  that  of  the  cathedral. 
If  we  may  judge  by  the  calender  printed  by  Dr.  Wickham  Legg  in 
his  edition  of  the  Westminster  Missal  (p.  1385  seqq.)  from  the 
Royal  MS.  2  A  xxn  assigned  by  Sir  E.  M.  Thompson  to  the  later 
years  of  the  reign  of  king  Henry  II,  the  Canterbury  cathedral 
calendar  of  that  date  was  adopted  practically  in  its  entirety  by 
Westminster.  The  few  omissions  and  additions  that  were  made 
do  not  affect  the  identity  of  the  two  documents;  and,  what 
seems  particularly  worthy  of  notice,  this  Westminster  calendar 
has  precisely  the  three  entries  mentioned  p.  121  n.2  supra  as  special 
to  the  contemporary  Canterbury  calendar  in  the  Eadwine  Psalter 
N°4.  But  questions  like  this  and  others  already  touched  on  (p.  38 
supra)  that  attach  to  the  calendars  of  English  churches  and 
monasteries  in  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries  must  be  dealt 
with,  if  at  all,  by  other  hands;  they  are  now  beyond  my  range. 

1  In  Leland's  Collectanea  (ed.  1770  iv,  119)  under  the  title 'Nomina  sanctorum  requiescen- 
tium  in  Cantuar.  ecclesia'  is  the  list  given  in  this  prayer,  and  in  the  same  order  except  that  at  the 
beginning  St.  Thomas  is  omitted,  and  at  the  end  are  added  'S.  Lanfrancus,  Ediva  regina'.  The 
two  leaves  (265-266)  in  Cotton  MS.  Claudius  B  ix,  from  which  Dart  (Ap.  N°  ix,  p.  xxvi)  gives  a 
similar  list,  may  be  of  the  fourteenth  century  (?);  this  also  contains  'venerable  Lanfranc'  and 
the  'noble  queen  Edyva';  Dart's  print  must  be  read  across  the  page  for  the  order  of  the  MS. 


125 


III.  CONCLUSIONS 

BEFORE  coming  to  the  consideration  of  the  date  of  the 
Bosworth  Psalter,  or  of  the  person  for  whom  it  might  have 

been  written,  it  will  be  useful  to  state  briefly  the  results 
obtained  from  the  foregoing  examination. 

(i)  In  the  first  place  this  Psalter  is  marked  off  from  all  other 
known  English  psalters  by  the  way  in  which  it  includes  every  portion 
of  the  Divine  Offiee,  except  of  course  the  lessons  of  Matins  read 
by  the  reader  alone,  and  the  prayers  said  aloud  by  the  officiant 
alone.  The  manuscript  was  thus  evidently  designed  for  practical 
use;  that  is,  that  the  person  who  possessed  it  should  be  able  to 
follow  the  whole  of  the  Divine  Office  as  publicly  said. 

(2)  This  Office  was  the  Monastic  or  Benedictine  and  not  the 
Roman  or  Secular  Office.  It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that 
the  state  of  the  MS.  makes  it  certain  that  it  was  regularly  used. 

(3)  The  calendar  contained  in  the  volume  is  a  calendar  of 
the  Cathedral  church  of  Canterbury  and  the  natural  conclusion 
would  be  that  the  volume  was  also  written  for  use  in  that  church. 

(4)  It  is  perfectly  evident  from  the  unique  character  and  indeed 
splendour  of  the  Psalter,  whether  we  regard  its  size,  the  hand- 
writing or  the  ornamentation,  that  it  must  have  been  written  for 
some  great  personage.  No  person  connected  with  Christ  Church, 
Canterbury,  would  seem  to  be  more  likely  to  have  been  the 
possessor  of  this  manuscript,  so  notable  in  its  art  and  execution, 
than  St.  Dunstan,  the  first  ecclesiastic  of  the  kingdom.  In  this 
connection  also  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  calendar  contain- 
ed in  the  volume  is  based  on  a  calendar  of  the  monastery  of  Glas- 
tonbury, which  is  what  might  be  expected  in  the  case  of  one  who 
had  been  abbot  of  that  house.  This  consideration  brings  us  at 
once  to  the  question  of  the  probable  date  of  the  MS. 

THE  DATE  OF  THE  PSALTER 

Books  of  this  kind  do  not  ordinarily  contain  any  internal  evidence 
of  date.  This  special  MS.,  however,  has  an  indication  which  it  is 
not  proper  to  neglect:  the  hymnal  does  not  include  the  hymn  for 

126 


St  Dunstan  to  be  found  in  later  collections,  and  the  compilation, 
therefore,  probably  dates  before  the  spread  of  his  cultus,  which 
as  all  the  documents  go  to  show  must  have  begun  very  soon,  in- 
deed almost  immediately,  after  his  death  in  a.  d.  988.  But  in  reality 
any  judgment  as  to  the  date  of  this  MS.  must  largely  depend  on 
palaeographical  considerations  and,  as  those  who  have  most  experi- 
ence in  this  matter  know  so  well,  nothing  is  more  difficult  than  the 
formation  of  an  exact  opinion  on  mere  palaeographical  grounds  in 
the  present  state  of  the  science.  Taking  the  book,  however,  as  it 
stands  and  turning  to  other  English  MSS.  of  the  tenth  and 
eleventh  centuries,  so  far  as  these  have  fallen  under  our  notice 
and  consideration,  the  Bosworth  Psalter  would  appear  to  have 
been  executed  in  the  second  half  of  the  tenth  century,1  and 
probably  at  a  date  nearer  to  the  middle  of  the  century  than  to 
the  end. 

We  have  seen  that  in  all  probability  the  book  was  made  for 
one  who  publicly  said  the  Benedictine  Office  at  Canterbury;  and 
further  that  the  date  when  it  was  so  used  was  possibly  in  the 
first  part  of  the  second  half  of  the  tenth  century.  Since  bishop 
Stubbs  by  the  publication  of  his  Memorials  of  St.  Dunstan  caused 
a  revolution  in  public  opinion  in  regard  to  that  great  man  much 
has  been  said  and  written  about  English  monasticism  in  that 
century,  and  the  ideas  expressed  by  that  historian  have  been 
accepted,  developed  and  embellished  by  subsequent  writers.  But 
there  is  an  initial  weakness  in  bishop  Stubbs'  treatment  of  the 
subject,  upon  which  it  may  be  well  to  speak  plainly.  Whilst  the 
bishop's  abilities  power  and  knowledge  of  course  deserve  every 
recognition,  it  can  hardly  be  denied  that  in  regard  to  the  more 
purely  religious  side  of  history,  as  it  did  not  attract  his  sympathies 
so  he  did  not  really  take  the  pains  necessary  to  understand  it. 
We  may  go  further  and  say  that  this  is  the  case  in  regard  to  the 
ecclesiastical  system  of  the  Middle  Ages.  As  an  example  it  is 
only  necessary  to  point  to  his  misunderstanding  of  the  position  of 
the  Papacy  in  the  Middle  Ages,  as  shown  by  the  late  Professor 
Maitland. 

We  are  here  concerned  only  with  his  Memorials  of  St.  Dunstan. 

1  The  MS.  Psalter  Reg.  2.  B.  v,  which  the  Bosworth  Psalter  perhaps  most  resembles  in  the 
general  character  of  the  writing  has  been  assigned  to  about  the  year  a.d.  950. 

127 


Any  one  completely  informed  as  to  the  history  of  monachism 
and  acquainted  with  the  original  sources  of  our  knowledge  of 
the  history  of  the  tenth  century  at  home  and  abroad,  who,  after 
making  himself  master  of  the  original  documents  for  the  life  of 
St.  Dunstan  contained  in  bishop  Stubbs'  volume,  will  turn  to  the 
Preface  of  the  Memorials,  cannot  but  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  bishop's  story  is  utterly  unintelligible.  Further,  when 
the  Preface  is  tested  and  analysed  the  earnest  enquirer  will  be 
forced  to  conclude  that  the  writer  has  misunderstood  the  history 
of  St.  Dunstan  up  to  the  time  of  his  exile,  as  he  has  misun- 
derstood the  wider  subject  named  above. 

The  root  of  the  whole  difficulty  which  bishop  Stubbs  creates 
for  himself  is  in  the  treatment  of  the  birth  date  of  St.  Dunstan. 
This  once  set  right  it  is  possible  by  closely  following  the  original 
documents  to  give  an  intelligible  and  consistent  account  of  the 
earlier  part  of  the  saint's  career.  It  is  of  course  not  possible  to 
examine  the  question  at  this  point,  but  as  it  is  a  matter  of  some 
importance,  and  as  its  treatment  does  not  depend  so  much  on 
knowledge  of  the  history  of  monasticism  as  upon  sound  critical 
methods,  a  special  discussion  on  this  point  is  appended. 

The  question  of  St.  Dunstan's  monachism  has  been  unneces- 
sarily complicated  by  vague  talk  about  'the  resumption  of  the 
name  and  dress  of  a  monk' — 'pure  Benedictinism' — or  a  'Bene- 
dictine discipline  '  perfect  accord  with  which  it  is  suggested  con- 
stitutes a  Benedictine  monk.  The  real  point  is  extremely  simple: 
the  monk  is  constituted  by  his  'profession'  or  vow,  and  by  that 
alone.  Degrees  of  strictness  are  no  doubt  fit  subjects  for  moral 
reflexions,  but  in  the  tenth  century,  as  indeed  before  and  sub- 
sequently, men  became  monks  by  taking  the  vows  of  religion 
and  not  by  'assuming  the  name  and  dress';  indeed  the  personal 
friend  of  St.  Dunstan,  who  became  his  biographer,  says  expressly 
that  the  saint  as  a  young  man  embraced  'the  salutary  rule  (jnsti- 
tutio)  1  of  St.  Benedict '. 

Without  entering  upon  any  larger  question  it  may  be  taken 
as  certain  that  the  Office  said  by  St.  Dunstan  at  Glastonbury  and 
later  in  his  life  was  the  Benedictine  Office.      This  will  hardly  be 

*  This  is  the  very  word  u»ed  in  the  Bosworth  Psalter  to  note  the  division  in  p$.  143  ordered 
by  St.  Benedict's  Rule — divisio  institution!/  Benedict':. 

128 


questioned.  The  point  however  remains  as  to  the  Divine  Office 
said  at  Canterbury  in  the  tenth  century — was  it  Benedictine  such 
as  said  by  monks  or  was  it  Roman,  such  as  used  by  secular  clergy 
or  canons?  This  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  the  monasticism  of 
Christ  Church  Canterbury,  but  it  may  be  useful  to  point  out  that 
the  privilege  of  Archbishop  Wulfred  in  a.  d.  813  speaks  of  the 
regula  monasterialis  discipline  being  in  force  there  and  not  of  canon- 
ical rule.  That  Odo,  the  uncle  of  Oswald,  became  a  Benedictine 
monk  before  accepting  the  archbishopric  of  Canterbury  is  certain, 
and  the  obvious  reason  for  so  doing  was  his  wish  to  conform 
himself  to  the  public  Benedictine  observances  in  regard  to  church 
services  and  the  Divine  Office  in  particular,  since  in  regard  to  the 
regular  routine  of  the  monastic  life,  he  would  as  archbishop  have 
been  exempt. 

So  far  therefore  as  the  question  of  the  Divine  Office  is 
concerned,  there  is  no  greater  reason  for  assigning  the  Bos  worth 
Psalter  to  the  time  of  Archbishop  Aclfric  (995-1006)  than  to 
that  of  St.  Dunstan.  The  palaeographical  and  other  considerations 
which  point  to  an  earlier  date  than  the  close  of  the  tenth  century 
may  be  allowed  their  full  weight  and  the  MS.  assigned  to  the 
age  of  St.  Dunstan. 

On  the  question  of  the  handwriting  we  have  given  our  opinion 
and  it  is  for  experts  to  determine.  On  -the  ornamentation,  how- 
ever, some  few  words  may  be  allowed.  It  seems  to  be  quite 
unique  among  English  manuscripts.  It  stands  in  marked  contrast 
with  the  productions  of  the  Winchester  School  of  this  period. 
These  have  illuminations  which  are  compositions  of  the  richest 
kind,  with  a  free  use  of  gold.  They  are  both  elaborate  and  even 
gorgeous,  whilst  the  ornamentations  of  the  Bosworth  Psalter  are 
of  a  wholly  different  character.  These  latter  are  in  perfect  taste, 
and  they  manifest  at  once  a  perfection  of  design  a  simplicity  of 
execution  and  a  wonderful  harmony  and  scheme  of  colour.  The 
whole  manifests  a  staid  and  serious  yet  withal  grand  mind  behind 
the  composition.  To  those  who  know  the  history  of  the  latter 
half  of  the  tenth  century  the  Winchester  books  can  hardly  fail 
to  remind  them  of  the  personality  of  St.  Ethelwold,  and  in  the 
same  way  the  Bosworth  Psalter  seems  in  its  special  characteristics 


129 


to  suggest  the  even  greater  personality  of  St.  Dunstan  the  greatest 
man  of  his  age. 

In  our  opinion  therefore  this  Bosworth  Psalter  should  be 
assigned  to  a  date  corresponding  to  the  earlier  years  of  St.  Dun- 
stan's  archiepiscopate  at  Canterbury.  It  was  probably  written  for 
him,  and  quite  possibly  under  his  direction  the  artist  ornamented 
it  according  to  his  taste. 


130 


APPENDIX 

SOME  NOTES   ON  THE  ACCEPTED  DATE  OF 

SAINT  DUNSTAN'S  BIRTH 

BY 

LESLIE  A.  StL.  TOKE,  B.A. 


NOTE 

The  origin  of  the  following  paper  on  the  birth-date  of  St.  Dunstan 
is  this:  Some  time  ago  Mr.  L.  Toke  proposed  to  write  the  life  of 
that  Saint,  but  on  examining  the  original  materials  and  reading 
Bishop  Stubbs's  Preface  to  the  Memorials  of  St.  Dunstan  he  found 
himself  quite  unable  to  reconcile  the  particulars  given  in  the 
former  with  the  statements  of  the  latter  as  to  the  year  of  Saint 
Dunstan's  birth.  As  a  result  he  felt  himself  unable  to  proceed 
and  laid  aside  his  project  for  the  time.  By  accident  Mr.  Edmund 
Bishop  heard  of  this  and  handed  over  to  Mr.  Toke  the  materials 
he  had  collected  in  an  endeavour  to  settle  the  question  of  Saint 
Dunstan's  birth  year,  as  he  had  experienced  the  same  difficulty 
and  convinced  himself  that  Bishop  Stubbs  was  entirely  mistaken 
in  assigning  it  to  the  year  a.  d.  925.  The  collections  thus  placed 
at  Mr.  Toke's  disposal  were  used  by  him  in  a  further  study  of 
the  subject  and  the  paper  here  printed  is  the  result  of  his  work. 


SOME  NOTES  ON  THE  ACCEPTED  DATE 
OF  SAINT  DUNSTAN'S  BIRTH 


THE  *  accepted  year'  for  St.  Dunstan's  birth  is  924-5.  It 
appears  in  our  encyclopaedias  and  books  of  reference,  in 
our  popular  political  and  ecclesiastical  histories,  in  the 
writings  of  even  the  more  scientific  English  historians  who  have 
dealt  with  St.  Dunstan.  A  date  so  widely  accepted  might  be 
supposed  to  rest  on  firm  foundations.  It  is,  however,  a  matter 
for  some  surprise  that  the  difficulties,  amounting  to  absurdities, 
arising  out  of  this  date  do  not  seem  to  have  impressed  the  more 
cautious  and  thoughtful  writers  of  modern  times. 

For,  if  we  adopt  925  as  the  year  of  St.  Dunstan's  birth  and 
bring  it  into  connection  with  such  other  dates  in  his  life  as  are 
certain,  we  shall  be  obliged  to  infer  that  at  the  age  of  twenty-seven 
he  had  been  offered  the  two  important  bishoprics  of  Winchester 
and  Crediton;  that  he  was  made  Abbot  of  Glastonbury  some 
time  between  the  ages  of  seventeen  and  twenty-two;  that  he  was 
professed  a  monk  and  ordained  a  priest  before  he  was  sixteen. 
We  must  remember  that  the  chief  actors  in  these  occurrences  were 
prominent  members  of  the  reforming  party  of  the  day;  and, 
without  the  most  positive  evidence,  it  cannot  be  imagined  that 
one  of  the  most  devout  and  respected  bishops  of  his  time  and 
the  real  originator  of  the  English  monastic  movement  of  the 
tenth  century  would  ordain  as  priest,  and  seemingly  in  the  capital 
city  of  the  kingdom,  a  boy  of  sixteen,  a  person  that  is  of  about 
half  the  canonical  age.  Yet  (on  the  assumption  that  the  date 
925  is  correct)  not  one,  but  a  regular  sequence  of  abnormalities 
is  supposed  to  have  taken  place  in  the  life  of  the  first  ecclesiastic 
of  the  realm.  More  singular  still,  not  the  slightest  hint  of  all 
this  is  given  by  friend  or  by  foe  in  his  own  day,  nor  is  there  the 
least  mention  in  any  of  his  early  biographers  that  in  the  events 
recorded  there  was  any  contravention  of  church  law,  or  anything  in 
the  slightest  degree  irregular  in  his  ecclesiastical  career.  This  should 
raise  doubts  whether  there  be  not  some  mistake  in  the  chronology 
which  now  passes  as  fact,   and  therefore  there  is  sufficient  prima 

J33 


facie  reason  for  examining  the  grounds  on  which  the  birth  of 
St.  Dunstan  is  assigned  to  the  year  925. 

The  earliest  or  St.  Dunstan's  biographers  to  fix  any  definite 
date  for  his  birth  was  Osbern,  a  monk  of  Christ  Church,  Canter- 
bury, who  wrote  about  the  year  1090.  His  exact  words  are: 
*  Regnante  .  .  .  j^thelstano,  anno  quidem  ejus  primo  [924-5] 
.  .  .  natus  est  .  .  .  Dunstanus  V  This  statement  has  been  copied 
by  later  mediaeval  historians'  and  by  writers  in  modern  times. 
It  was  first  questioned  by  Mabillon,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  He  observed  that  on  this  assumption 
St.  Dunstan  would  have  become  a  monk  at  the  age  of  fifteen 
and  yet  is  represented  as  then  thinking  of  marriage.  On  this 
ground  alone  Mabillon  rejected  the  date  925,  and  concluded 
that  St.  Dunstan  was  born  long  before  that  year.3  Early  in  the 
nineteenth  century  Dr.  Lingard  rejected  the  whole  story  of 
St.  Dunstan's  early  days,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  quite  irrecon- 
cilable with  other  known  dates  in  the  saint's  life.4 

The  question  remained  in  this  state  until  1874,  when  Bishop 
Stubbs  edited  for  the  c  Rolls  Series  '  the  Memorials  of  St.  Dunstan. 
In  his  introduction  to  this  volume  some  of  the  difficulties  attending 
the  question  of  the  birth-date  are  noted  and  two  pages  are  devoted 
to  indicating  the  sources  of  our  information  on  this  point.  No 
criticism  of  these  sources  is  attempted,  but  he  definitely  adopts 
and  fixes  as  the  date  of  St.  Dunstan's  birth  the  year  925,  the 
whole  question  being  dismissed  with  the  sentence  that  '  the 
matter  is  not  in  itself  of  great  importance  '.'  Dr.  Stubbs'  conclu- 
sions have  been  accepted  en  bloc  by  later  writers,  and  with  varying 
degrees  of  positiveness  it  is  now  settled  that  St.  Dunstan  was 
born  in  the  year  924-5. 

But  in  view  of  the  consequences,  which,  it  has  been  pointed 
out  above,  must  necessarily  follow  from  the  adoption  of  this  date, 
a  re-examination  of  the  question  is  obviously  called  for. 

1  M-.morials  of  St.  Dunstan,  ed.  W.  Stubbs  (Rolls  Series),  1874,  P-  71- 

'  Cf.  William  of  Malmesburv,  in  the  Memorials,  p.  253.     Also  the  author  of  the  Historia 
Ramesiensis  cd.  Gale,  Scriptores  x<v,  1691,  p.  389:  and  ed.  Macray  (Rolls  Series),  1886,  p.  17. 
!  .Innales  Ordinis  S.  Benedicti  iii,  p.  424  (Lucca  edition,  iii,  p.  393). 
'  History  and  antiquities  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Church,  1845,  vol.  ii,  p.  269. 
s  Memorials,  p.  lxxiv. 

«34 


The  materials  that  bear  on  the  question  of  the  birth-date 
consist  first  of  the  two  almost  contemporary  biographies  by  the 
priest  B.  and  by  Adelard;  next  of  statements  in  two  of  the  six 
texts  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  chronicle  and  in  an  Anglo-Saxon 
calendar  adduced  by  Dr.  Stubbs;  thirdly  of  the  Lives  by  Osbern 
and  by  Eadmer,  both  monks  of  Christ  Church,  Canterbury,  who 
both  wrote  towards  the  close  of  the  eleventh  century. 

The  foregoing  give  us  the  only  direct  evidence  we  possess  as 
to  the  birth-date  and  any  statement  we  can  make  must  depend 
on  the  nature  and  value  of  their  testimony.  The  later  lives  and 
the  references  in  Florence  of  Worcester's  Chronicon  and  in  about 
a  dozen  other  writers  add  nothing  material  to  our  knowledge. 

Of  the  early  Lives  the  first,  written  by  the  priest  B.,  who  was 
a  personal  friend  of  St.  Dunstan  and  who  wrote  between  996 
and  1004,  that  is  between  eight  and  sixteen  years  after  the  saint's 
death,  makes  only  indirect  reference  to  his  birth.  The  text  runs, 
'Hujus  [i.e.  Athelstani]  igitur  imperii  temporibus,  oritur  puer 
strenuus  in  Westsaxonum  finibus.  .  .  Quern  pii  parentes  sacri 
baptismatis  undis  renatum  Dunstanum  vocaverunt.'1  Taken  by 
itself  this  is  obviously  ambiguous.  The  word  l oritur'  may  refer 
either  to  his  birth  or  to  his  attraction  of  public  attention.8 

The  next  life,  by  Adelard,  a  monk  of  Mont  Blandin  near 
Ghent,  was  written  about  twenty-three  years  after  St.  Dunstan's 
death  and  does  not  refer  to  the  time  of  his  birth  at  all.  But  it  is 
definitely  stated  that  he  was  introduced  by  his  uncle,  Archbishop 
Athelm,  to  king  iEthelstan,  c  quern  sacra  unctione  livit.'3  This 
last  statement,  however,  raises  the  difficult  questions  as  to  the 
chronology  of  Athelm  into  which  it  is  not  now  necessary  to  enter, 
because  they  do  not  concern  the  present  discussion. 

These  two  lives  were  written  while  the  contemporaries  of 
St.  Dunstan  were  still  living;  the  next  was  composed  under  other 
circumstances  and  in  a  quite  different  atmosphere.  It  was  written 
after  the  Conquest  and  seemingly  late  in  the  eleventh  century,4 

1  Memorials,  p.  6. 

2  Strict  linguistic  usage  would  perhaps  be  opposed  to  the  former  alternative.  'Oritur'  gene- 
rally implies  either  'origin'  or  'appearance'  rather  than  mere  physical  'birth'.  And  surely  'puer 
strenuus'  can  hardly  mean  'a  sturdy  baby-boy'. 

J  Memorials,  pp.  55-56.  Memorials,  p.  151,  note  2. 

J35 


by  Osbern,  a  monk  of  Christ  Church,  Canterbury,  and  biographer 
of  the  saints  whose  relics  were  preserved  in  the  church  of  his 
monastic  home.  In  his  life  of  Dunstan  he  makes  three  distinct 
statements  bearing  on  the  date  of  the  saint's  birth,  and  it  is  worthy 
of  notice  that  they  are  quite  irreconcilable  with  one  another. 
The  first  says,  '  Regnante  magnifico  Anglorum  rege  Athelstano, 
anno  quidem  imperii  ejus  primo,  adventus  vero  Anglorum  in 
Britanniam  quadringentesimo  nonagesimo  septimo,  .  .  .  natus  est 
pucr  Dei  Dunstanus.'1  The  second  and  third  statements  occur 
together  in  the  same  passage,  which  runs  as  follows,  'Anno  igitur 
Verbi  Incarnati  duodecim  minus  a  millesimo,  adventus  Anglorum 
in  Britanniam  quingentesimo  sexagesimo  tertio  .  .  .  Dunstanus 
.  .  .  diem  aeternam  aeternaliter  possidet,  anno  patriarchatus  sui 
tricesimo  tertio,  nativitatis  etiam  circiter  septuagesimo.'2 

Now  from  other  sources  we  know  that  the  first  year  of  king 
^thelstan  was  924-5.  But  if  St.  Dunstan  died  in  988,  in  'about 
the  70th  year  of  his  life',  he  must  have  been  born  about  918. 
Again  if  988  is  the  563rd  year  since  the  Angles  came  to  Britain, 
that  event  would  have  occurred  in  425.  But  the  497th  year  after 
425  is  922.  Moreover,  St.  Dunstan  became  archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury probably  in  the  year  959.  So  the  '33rd  year  of  his  patri- 
archate' brings  us  at  least  to  992  instead  of  to  988.  In  any  case, 
which  of  the  three  years  918,  922  and  924-5  did  Osbern  mean? 
They  cannot  all  be  correct,  yet  they  are  all  stated  with  equal 
decisiveness  and  precision,  and  two  of  them  depend  on  a  probably 
inaccurate  calculation  of  the  date  of  the  coming  of  the  Angles 
into  Britain. 

Osbern,  therefore,  cannot  be  relied  on  as  an  authority  for  the 
birth-date  of  St.  Dunstan,  and  on  his  statements  depend  those 
of  his  imitators. 

The  next  biographer,  Eadmer,3  although  professedly  writing 
to  correct  Osbern's  inaccuracies  and  although  a  monk  of  the  same 
house,  significantly  enough  makes  no  reference  whatever  to  the 
birth-date  or  to  any  of  his  fellow-monk's  attempts  at  chronology. 
It  is  clear  enough  that,  even  at  that  date,  he  could  not  understand 
it  or  give  it  any  coherence. 

William    of    Malmesbury,4    John   Capgrave,5   and   the   rest 

1  Memorials,  p.  71.       3  Ibid.  p.  120.       3  Ibid.  pp.  165-6.        4  Ibid.  p.  253.        B  Ibid.  p.  325. 
I36 


simply  copy  Osbern's  first  statement  as  to  the  year  of  birth, 
though  William  of  Malmesbury  does  make  some  attempt  to 
make  the  death-date  harmonize  therewith.  Florence  of  Worces- 
ter1 merely  transcribes  the  ambiguous  sentence  of  the  priest  B. 

From  the  preceding  it  has  become  clear  that  Bishop  Stubbs' 
assertion  that  '  all  our  authorities  agree  in  referring  the  word 
[oritur]  to  Dunstan's  birth  ',2  is  a  mere  hasty  assumption  and  has 
no  foundation  in  fact.  For  only  two  authors,  B.  and  Florence 
of  Worcester,  use  the  word  at  all;  of  these,  Florence  of  Worcester 
copies  his  whole  sentence  from  B.,  and  B.  very  probably  does 
not  mean  to  refer  to  the  birth-date  at  all.3 

It  is,  therefore  necessary  to  do  what  Bishop  Stubbs  has  neg- 
lected to  do,  viz.  see  what  value  is  to  be  attached  to  the  statements 
of  the  'two  MSS.  of  the  Chronicle',  which  he  says  Osbern  fol- 
lows,4 and  of  the  '  ancient  Anglo-Saxon  Paschal  Table '  which  he 
produces  in  support  of  his  own  calculations.5 

As  these  authorities  appear  in  print  all  three  seem  to  state 
quite  definitely  that  St.  Dunstan  was  bom  in  the  year  925. 

The  passages  in  the  two  texts  of  the  edition  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 
Chronicle  by  Mr.  Benjamin  Thorpe,  in  the  Rolls  Series 6  are  as 
follows : — 

Text  A.  [C.C.C.C.  173.]  Text  F.    [Cott:  Domit:  A.  viii.] 

An.  dcccc.xxv.   Her  Eadweard  cing  An.  dccccxxv.    Her  Eadward  cing 

forbferde  •  *]  iEjjelstan  his  sunu  feng  forbferde  '  •]  j^E^estanus  his  sunu 

to   rice.     *]    See    Dunstan    wearS  feng  to  rice.    "]  Wulfelm  wear]?  ge- 

akaenned  •  [*j  Wulfelm  feng  to  ban  hadod   to  arb\  to   Cantw.   •  *]   S» 

arcebiscoprice  on  Cantuarebyri.]  I    Dunstan  wearb  geboren. 

The  chronicle-entry  in  the  Paschal  calendar  is  thus  given  by 
Bishop  Stubbs: — 

'This  computation'  [i.e.  that  St.  Dunstan  was  born  in  925] 
'is  borne  out  by  an  entry  in  an  ancient  Anglo-Saxon  Paschal 

1  Flor.  Wig.  Chronicon,  ed.  B.  Thorpe;  1848;  vol.  i.  p.  130. 

2  Memorials,  p.  lxxiij.  '  Cf.  note  2  on  p.  135  above. 
4  Memorials,  p.  lxxiij.  5  Ibid.  p.  lxxiv. 

6  Rolls  Series,  2  volt;  1861;  pp.  196-199.    The  plan,  adopted  in  this  edition,  of  printing  the 
six  texts  in  parallel  columns  is  the  only  one  that  makes  them  readily  intelligible.  Thorpe  does  not 
give  the  text  either  of  A  or  of  F.  quite  correctly. 
R 

n? 


Table,  preserved  in  the  Cotton  MS.,  Caligula  A.  15,  under  the 
year  925,  "on  thison  geare  waes  see  Dunstan  geboren." ' 1 

Here,  then,  are  apparently  three  concurrent  testimonies  sup- 
porting Osbern's  first  statement,  and  throwing  some  light  on  the 
obscurity  of  the  priest  B.  It  is  now  necessary  to  examine  each 
of  these  testimonies  as  they  stand  in  the  MSS. 

The  original  MS.  of  Text  A.  is  about  contemporary  with 
St.  Dunstan.  Most  of  the  editors  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle, 
especially  those  of  more  recent  times,  have  marked  nearly  all  the 
passages  relating  to  St.  Dunstan  before  a.  d.  959  as  Mater  inser- 
tions '  into  that  text.  With  regard  to  the  authenticity  of  the 
entry  under  a.  d.  925,  relating  to  St.  Dunstan's  birth,  the  various 
modern  editors  deal  with  the  case  thus: — 

The  editor  in  the  Monumenta  Historica  Britannka  (1848) 
encloses  the  Dunstan  and  Wulfelm  entries  in  square  brackets, 
but  notes  that  though  the  Dunstan  entry  forms  part  of  the 
authentic  text  of  F.  it  is  'inserted  in  A.'; 

Thorpe  (1861),  as  seen  above,  admits  the  entry  as  to  Saint 
Dunstan  into  the  authentic  text  of  A.,  but  encloses  the  imme- 
diately subsequent  entry  as  to  Wulfelm  in  square  brackets  as 
a  c  later  insertion  ' ; 

Earle  (1865)  prints  both  these  entries  within  square  brackets 
as  c  inserted  by  a  later  hand  ' ; 

Mr.  Plummer •  (1 892)  prints  both  the  Dunstan  and  the  Wulfelm 
entries  as  later  insertions,  and  holds  that  most  of  the  interpolations 
into  A.  during  this  period  are  due  to  the  scribe  of  F.  (as  to  whose 
date  see  below).  He,  however,  distinguishes  between  those  two 
entries,  and  considers  that  the  Wulfelm  entry  is  in  a  '  hand  of 
the  twelfth  century'  and  the  Dunstan  entry  in  a  'good  and 
fairly  early  hand '. 

A  further  careful  examination  of  Text  A.  seems  to  disclose, 
as  Mr.  Plummer  indicates,  three  different  hands  in  the  entries 
under  a.  d.  925.  The  references  to  Eadweard  and  to  iEthelstan 
are  in  the  original  hand:  that  to  St.  Dunstan  is  in  a  later  hand, 
probably  of  the  eleventh  century:  whilst  that  to  Wulfelm  is  in 
a  third  hand,  probably  of  the  twelfth  century. 

1  Memorial!,  p.  Ixxiv.  The  text  of  Calig.  A.  xv  I.as  been  printed  in  full  by  F.  Liebermann 
n  his  U'igidruckte  Ar.glo-Normanniscbe  Gescbicbtsquelleii;  Strassburg,  1879;  P-  3# 

I38 


In  regard  to  Text  F.  This  MS.  has  perhaps  received  from 
the  various  editors  less  critical  attention  than  is  its  due.  Yet, 
for  our  present  purpose,  there  is  much  of  considerable  interest 
in  the  entry  under  a.  d.  925.  For  we  note  that  since  passages 
which  are  interpolations  into  A.1  are  to  be  found  in  the  text  of 
F.,and  both  MSS.  belonged  to  Christ  Church,  Canterbury,  Text  F. 
must  be  of  later  origin  than  the  interpolated  Text  A.  Sir  T.  Duffus 
Hardy  at  first  considered  it  to  be  c  in  a  hand  apparently  of  the 
twelfth  century'.2  In  a  later  work  he  more  cautiously  assigned  it 
to 'the  eleventh  or  twelfth  centuries',3  whilst  Sir.  E.  M.  Thomp- 
son and  Dr.  Warner  are  inclined  to  place  it  at  the  end  of  the 
eleventh  century.4  The  text  of  the  passage  referring  to  St. 
Dunstan's  birth  has  not  been  printed  quite  accurately  either  in 
the  Monumenta  or  by  Thorpe.  In  the  original  MS.  it  is  arranged 
as  follows:5 

h'«  of  Baeiumrb'  Tex  flTblfr&L  Tttj'  is  Abesta.nsu.fn  VteejVylfA-m  p«ajifr  5eA»a»i  n 
,       & XUljdv?  orfcuat'  «..  ai>  £r«patC  c& Mjplb  rynu. *£*" ^7^b^t<in 

SVicatuJ"      OuTxJtatnuJ  tiatuf  ~£ 


Now,  first,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  Anglo-Saxon  Wulfelm 
and  Dunstan  entries,  as  well  as  the  Latin  Dunstan  entry  are  writ- 
ten in  the  margins;  the  two  former  on  the  extreme  right-hand 
margin,  the  third  at  the  foot  of  the  page;  and  that  all  are  obvious 
additions.  On  the  other  hand,  the  passages  relating  to  kings  Eadward 
and  iEthelstan  were  entered  in  the  body  of  the  page,  and  are  part 
of  the  original  script.  Secondly,  on  careful  examination  of  the 
MS.,  three  different  hands  can  be  distinguished:  the  Anglo-Saxon 
and  the  Latin  Eadward  and  iEthelstan  entries  are  in  the  original  hand; 
the  Anglo-Saxon  Wulfelm  and  Dunstan  entries  and  the  Latin 

1  E.  g.  sub  956,  959,  961.  *  Man.  Hist.  Brit.  p.  hxv|. 

3  Descriptive  Catalogue  (Rolls  Series);  vol.  i,  p.  660. 

4  See  Mr.  Plummer's  Introduction  to  vol.  ii  of  his  edition,  p.  xxxvi. 

5  T!  e  Anglo-Sa:  >n  marginalia,  when  revived  by  a  chemical  re-agent,  lead  quite  clearly  as 
given  here.  Of  course  it  is  to  be  unde;\-tood  thai  this  diagram  anJ  those  given  below  are  only 
intended  to  show  the  arrangement  of  the  entries  in  the  MSS.,  and  are  in  no  sense  facsimiles  thereof, 

!39 


Wulfelm  entry  are  interpolations  by  a  second  hand;  the  Latin 
Dunstan  entry  at  the  foot  of  the  page  is  added  by  yet  a  third  hand. 
There  is  an  erasure  under  the  words  'hie  ob',  at  the  beginning 
of  the  last  line  of  the  page,  in  which  the  scribe  who  wrote  the 
Anglo-Saxon  marginalia  has  written  the  Latin  version  of  the  part 
relating  to  Wulfelm.  The  script  erased  was  in  red  ink,  and  appears 
to  have  been  a  date,  of  which  the  figures  '  xx '  are  still  decipher- 
able. If  we  turn  the  leaf  the  next  page  (f.  56  B.)  begins  with  two 
year-indications  on  the  same  line,  written  thus: — *  dcccc[xx]yj.1 
dccccxxvij.',  and  at  this  entry  of  two  years  are  to  be  found  the 
items  referring  to  Gudhfridh  and  to  Wulfelm  that  appear  in  only 
one  other  MS.,  and  then  under  the  year  927  alone.3 

In  view,  then,  of  the  date  of  even  the  original  script  and  of 
the  presence  of  these  interpolations,  Text  F.  cannot  be  relied  on 
as  independent  evidence  of  the  birth  of  St.  Dunstan,  for  the 
information  it  gives  might  have  been  derived  from  the  scribe's 
fellow-monk  of  Christ  Church,  Osbern  himself. 

There  remains  only  the  '  ancient  Anglo-Saxon  Paschal  Table, 
preserved  in  the  Cotton  MS.,  Caligula  A.  15',  fF.  i32b-i 33*. 
This  was  also  a  MS.  of  Christ  Church,  Canterbury.  The  Paschal 
Table  stretches  across  both  pages,(f.  I32bandf.  I33a)and  chronicle- 
notes  have  been  entered  in  a  blank  column  on  the  right-hand  page 
a  (f.  1 33a)-  It  begins  with  the  year  of  St.  Dunstan's  death,  a.  d.  988, 
and  in  the  blank  column  on  the  right-hand  page  the  first  chronicle 
entry  is  '  Her  fordhferde  See  Dunstan  arceb. ' 4 

Up  to  a.  d.  1076  the  ordinary  chronicle-notes  are  all  in  one 
hand,  and  as  far  as  a.  d.  1058  are  all  written  d'un  seuljet.  The  scribe 
deals  almost  exclusively  with  the  succession  of  Archbishops  of 
Canterbury  and  their  journeys  to  Rome,  and  with  the  accessions 
of  the  kings  of  England.  The  entry,  recording  at  a.  d.  925  the 
birth  of  St.  Dunstan  is  not  part  of  the  regular  chronicle-entries3 
and  is  in  a  hand  which  does  not  elsewhere  appear.     It  runs  in 

1  The  'xx'  in  the  MS.  was  omitted  and  is  written  in  above  the  rest  of  the  text. 
»  i.e.  in  Text  E.  [MS.  Bodl.  Laud.  636J.       In  text  D.  [Cott.  Tiber.  B.  iv.]   there  is   a  long 
list  of  events  ascribed  to  the  year  926  only.     Cf.  Thorpe;  op.  cit.\  vol.  i.  p.  199. 

3  Liebermann;  (op.  cit,  p.  3,  note  a.)  has  already  pointed  out  that  '  Diese  Eintragung  steht  Uber 
dem  Schema.' 

4  The  second  word  is  'fordhferde'  as  here  given.  By  an  oversight,  not  discovered  until  the 
plate  had  been  made,  the  't'  was  omitted  in  the  diagram. 

I4O 


a  curving  Fine  along  the  top  margins  of  ff.  132*  and  133*  and 
straight  down  the  edge  of  the  right-hand  margin  of  f.  133% 
regardless  of  the  symmetry  of  the  book,  but  following  in  irregu- 
lar fashion  the  arrangement  of  the  calendar  columns.  Part  of  the 
entry  has  been  cut  off  by  the  binder;  what  remains  is  arranged 'as 
follows : — 
On  folio  132  b, 


fa  btccc^v.  #< 

H- — li  ._  ti  ,_ 


iu.  ccT>cur.  **    '*•  ""•  "i- 


■I      -  ■    .  .      11.7711 


On  folio  133  *, 


'V   pa/ch   *v    hI.    7»M       \Ov ptjonjeope  pat./  /$,  'bvn/ra^jdyien.7  M 


H«p  pop$»i»*«.  5**  ^"Jto-n  cipceb 


9 

4 


-3 


J 


The  handwriting  of  this  notice  of  birth  is  about  contemporary 
with  the  original  hand,  i.  e.  between  1053  and  1076.  But  the 
whole  entry  is  obviously  a  mere  jotting,  suggested  perhaps  by  the 

141 


regular  chronicle-notes,  but  certainly  not  part  of  the  original 
scheme.  It  may  have  been  more  immediately  suggested  by  the 
notice  which  is  the  first  chronicle-note  on  the  page.  It  is 
possible  that  it  was  made  between  a.  d.  1060  and  a.  d.  1070,  but 
it  is  just  as  possible  it  may  be  much  later.  At  any  rate  it  is 
unlike  any  other  chronicle-note  before  1053,  is  quite  obviously 
an  interpolation  by  some  one  other  than  the  original  scribe,  and 
is  made  without  regard  to  the  character  of  the  original  work. 

The  'accepted  date',  then,  for  St.  Dunstan's  birth  is  accepted 
by  modern  writers  chiefly  on  the  authority  of  Bishop  Stubbs.  He 
found  'the  first  year  of  King  ^Ethelstan'  first  fixed  upon  in  Os- 
bern's  Vita  Sancti  DuttStani,  and  reconciled  its  preciseness  with  the 
vagueness  of  the  priest  B.  by  assuming  that  both  B.  and  Florence 
of  Worcester  meant 'was  born'  when  they  wrote  'oritur';  an  un- 
warranted assumption.  He  sought  for  further  support  for  his 
conclusions  in 'two  MSS.  of  the  Chronicle'  and  in  'an  ancient 
Anglo-Saxon  Paschal  Table.' 

But,  when  these  last  are  examined,  it  is  found  that  all  three 
MSS.  proceed  from  Osbern's  monastic  home  at  Christ  Church, 
Canterbury,  and  that  in  all  three  the  notices  of  St.  Dunstan's 
birth  are  interpolations  and  no  part  of  the  original  works  in  which 
they  appear.  Moreover,  they  date,  one  at  least  a  century,1  the 
others  probably  a  century  and  a  half  after  the  event  supposed  to 
be  recorded;  and  these  interpolations  were  made  not  earlier  than 
the  time  when  Osbern  was  producing  his  Vita  Sancti  Dunstani^ 
the  first  life  in  which  any  precise  date  of  birth  is  indicated.  Osbern 
himself  gives  three  divergent  indications  of  the  date  of  his  hero's 
birth,  only  one  of  which  agrees  with  that  given  unanimously  in 
the  three  MSS.  Finally  Eadmer,  another  monk  of  Christ  Church, 
known  as  a  professed  and  careful  historian,  undertakes  the  writing 
of  a  life  of  St.  Dunstan  with  the  express  purpose  of  correcting 
the  errors  of  earlier  biographers.  Yet,  though  having  Osbern 
particularly  in  view,  he  deliberately  passes  over  the  whole  ques- 

1  i.  e.  in  Text  A.  It  must  be  remembered  how  great  is  the  difficulty  of  assigning  even  an 
approximate  date  to  a  piece  of  writing  like  this  interpolation  apart  from  any  external  indications. 
It  is  quite  possible  that  the  interpolation  into  A.  may  not  date  from  the  first  half  but,  like  the  other 
two,  may  have  been  made  in  the  second  half  of  the  eleventh  century. 


142 


tion  of  the  date  of  St.  Dunstan's  birth,  which  was,  as  we  have  seen, 
recorded  in  at  least  three  MSS.,  besides  Osbern's  treatise,in  the 
library  of  his  own  house. 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  the  objections  to  the  date  925  as 
the  year  of  St.  Dunstan's  birth,  expressed  by  Mabillon  and  by 
Lingard  for  other  reasons,  find  full  justification  in  the  very  evi- 
dence which  has  been  recently  adduced  in  its  support.  It  will 
appear,  therefore,  that  there  are  no  solid  grounds  for  our  accept- 
ance of  the  year  925  as  that  of  the  saint's  birth,  whilst,  as  I  have 
already  pointed  out,  it  obviously  involves  us  in  a  tangle  of 
improbabilities.  And,  high  as  the  authority  of  Bishop  Stubbs 
justly  stands  as  historian  and  critic,  it  is  necessary  to  revise 
a  judgement  which  has  apparently  misled  later  writers  and  to 
revert  to  the  view  of  Mabillon  that,  c  longe  ante  nunc  annum' 
[925]  '  Dunstanus  in  lucem  editus  erat'.  When,  exactly,  he  was 
born  we  have  no  positive  evidence;1  but,  as  he  was  ordained 
priest  before  a.  d.  940,  and  by  the  Canon  Law  of  the  period  that 
could  not  take  place  till  he  was  at  least  thirty  years  old,  the 
presumption  is  that  his  birth-date  must  be  placed  at  least  as  early 
as  a.  d.  910. 

One  point  at  least  is  certain.  Unless  the  view  of  Bishop 
Stubbs  on  this  matter  be  revised,  the  life  of  St.  Dunstan  must 
remain  simply  unintelligible  to  us.  If  this  single  difficulty,  which 
is  apparently  due  to  the  historians  and  not  to  the  facts,  be  removed, 
the  story  of  his  life  can  be  seen  to  be  both  rational  and  consistent 
with  itself  and  with  common-sense. 

1  I  do  not  propose  to  eater  into  the  question,  whether  the  sources  of  Osbern's  statement 
were  the  entries  in  Caligula  A.  15,  or  in  Text  A.  or  Text  F.,  or  whether  any  of  these  may  have 
been  due  to  Osbern  himself,  or  indeed  into  the  relations  of  these  '  sources '  to  one  another.  For 
I  am  of  opinion  that  these  questions  can  only  be  dealt  with  by  way  of  conjecture  that  cannot  be 
tested  or  verified.  Such  discussions  must,  in  the  present  state  of  the  evidence,  end  in  a  confession 
of  ignorance,  and  can  only  divert  our  attention  from  the  one  question  that  is  of  importance, 
namely,  what  is  the  extent  and  character  of  the  evidence  that  St.  Dunstan  was  born  in  A.  D.  925? 

LESLIE  A.  StL.  TOKE 


H3 


ADDENDA 


The  tract  on  the  calendar  of  the  Bosworth  Psalter  has  grown  to  be  three  or 
four  times  as  long  as  the  simple  'Consultatio'  originally  designed;  and  branches 
out  into  discussions  that  were  not  contemplated.  It  is  therefore  necessarily  form- 
less; observations  or  details  really  connex  are  scattered  here  or  there.  It  is  hoped 
that  the  Index  may  in  some  measure  remedy  this  defect.  But  there  is  a  deficiency 
an  index  cannot  make  good.  Now  that  the  formal  conclusion  has  been  drawn  in 
regard  to  the  immediate  subject  of  enquiry  'What  is  B?',  and  that  the  Table 
of  Canterbury  calendars  is  fixed,  on  looking  over  the  completed  tract  I  feel  there 
might  be  just  cause  for  exception,  on  perhaps  more  than  one  ground,  did  I  not  also 
make  here  an  essay  in  dealing  with  that  'martyrological'  element  of  our  Anglo- 
Saxon  calendars  which  has  been  more  than  once  pointed  to  as  the  key  of  their 
history.  I  would  gladly  be  content  to  refer  to  something  sufficient  already  in  print; 
but  this  is  a  matter  which  seems  to  have  escaped  the  researches  of  those  who  have 
dealt  with  the  antiquities  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Church:  and  as  I  have  made  some 
progress  in  the  enquiry  for  the  purpose  of  the  tract  printed  above,  it  seems  a  pity 
now  to  leave  it  to  some  one  else  in  the  future  to  go  through  all  the  same  initial 
drudgery  again  in  investigating  this  peculiarly  dreary  (sometimes,  indeed,  dazing) 
class  of  document.  The  subject  will  be  dealt  with  here  in  as  brief  and  statistical 
a  manner  as  I  can  command.  Such  addition  is  a  mere  after-thought  and  has  had 
to  be  penned,  if  I  may  so  speak,  in  a  rush;  this  is  not  satisfactory;  but  the  need 
of  going  over  the  same  ground  again  and  again,  as  each  document  was  again  and 
again  examined  in  its  different  aspects,  has,  I  am  led  to  hope,  reduced  the  risk  of 
at  least  serious  error  to  a  minimum. 

Moreover,  since  the  greater  part  of  the  tract  on  the  calendar  of  the  Bosworth 
Psalter  was  in  type,  Dr.  M.  R.  James  has  kindly  sent  full  details  as  to  the  fragment 
of  calendar  in  the  Eton  MS.  78  (see  p.  69  n.  i);  and  both  Dr.  James  and 
Mr.  S.  C.  Cockerell  additional  calendars  of  St.  Augustine's.  I  do  not  know  how 
to  thank  them  better  than  by  utilizing  these  communications  at  once. 

The  subject-matter  of  these  Addenda  will  thus  be:  A.  The  Martyrological 
Element  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  calendars;  B.  The  Grouping  of  those  of  the  tenth 
and  eleventh  centuries;  C.  The  Calendar  of  St.  Augustine's. 

The  various  martyrologies  and  calendars  referred  to  are  cited  under  the  signs 
given  in  the  following  list.     The  dates  are  no  more  than  an  approximation. 
S 

H5 


B=  the  calendar  in  theBosworth  Psalter. 

Bc  =  Henschen-Papebroch's  large  type  in 
their  edition  of  the  '  Martyrology  of 
Bede',  A  A.  SS.  Boll.  Mar.  ii  (the  print 
used  is  that  in  the  Praefationes  etc.  vol. 
i,  Venet  i  7+9). ' 

D=  calendar  in  Bodl.  MS.  Digby  63 
[end  of  cent.  ix]. 

Do=  calendar  in  Bodl.  MS.  Douce  296 
[late  cent.  xi]. 

G  as  the  Glastonbury  calendar  in  TheLeo- 
fric  Missal  (Oxf.  1883)  pp.  23-34. 

Ga  =  the  metrical  calendar  in  Cotton  MS. 
Galba  A  xvm  (' Athelstan's  Psalter') 
ed.  in  R.  T.  Hampson,  Mcdii  Aevi  Ka- 
lendarium  I  pp.  397-420  [compiled 
seemingly  early  cent.  x]. 

Gell=  the  '  Martyrologium  Gellonense' 
in  d'Achery's  Spkilegium;  1st  ed.  xm  p. 
388   seqq.;    2nd   ed.   11   p.   25    seqq. 
[cent,  viii.] 

J  =  calendar  in  Bodl.  MS.  Junius  29;  a 
greatly  abridged  calendar  used  only  for 
characteristic  entries  ['  temp.  Athel- 
stani'  Wanley]. 

Ju=  calendar  in  Bodl.  MS.  Junius 99  [la- 
ter part  of  cent.  xi]. 

MH  =  the  Martyrologium  Hieronymi- 
anum  edd.  de  Rossi  and  Duchesne,  in 
A  A.  SZ.  Bell.  Nov.  II;  the  three  texts 
cited  separately  as  Ept  (St.  Willibrord's 


MS.)  early  viii  cent.;  Wiss  of  the  year 
772;  Bern  late  cent.  viii. 

N=  calendar  in  Cotton  MS.  Nero  A  11 
[?  about  1 020-30;  or  earlier?] 

OEM=0/</  English  Martyrology,  ed. 
Herzberg,  E.  E.  Text  Soc.  N°  1 1 6  [to- 
wards latter  part  of  cent.  ix]. 

Oeng=  Martyrology  of  Oengus  the  Culdee, 
ed.  Whitley  Stokes,  Henry  Bradshaw 
Soc.  vol.  xxix  [of  about  a.  d.  800.] 

R=  calendar  in  the  Missal  of  Robert  ofJu- 
mieges,  ed.  H.  A.  Wilson,  Henry  Brad- 
shaw Soc.  vol.  xi  [between  1 008- 1023]. 

S=  calendar  in  Salisbury  cathedral  MS. 
150  [second  half  of  cent.  x]. 

Sh  =  calendar  of  Sherborne  in  C.  C.  C.  C. 
MS.  422,  'the  Red  Book  of  Derby' 
[about  1050?]. 

V=calendar  in  Cotton  MS.  Vitellius  A 
xvm  [c.  1 060- 1 080?]. 

WT=calendar  of  Newminster  at  Win- 
chester in  Cotton  MS.  Titus  D  xxvn, 
in  Hampson  op.  cit.  1  pp.  435-446 
[about  1030]. 

WV=calendar  of  Winchester  cathedral 
in  Cotton  MS.  Vitellius  E  xvm;  in 
Hampson  op.  cit.  1  pp.  422-433  [about 
middle  of  cent.  xi]. 

Will  =  St.  Willibrord's  calendar  in  Paris 
B.  N.  MS.  Lat.  10837  [written  in  the 
first  years  of  cent,  viii].1 


1  Such  large  type  includes  the  1 14  historical  notices  and  also  the  enlarged  series  of  mere 
names  as  found  in  the  second  family  of  MSS.  (see  Dom  Quentin,  Les  Martyrologes  bistorijues,  Paris 
Lecoflre,  i<)cS,  pp.  4--50)  with  the  addition  of  the  seven  items  detailed  ibid.  p.  692.  The  exact 
discrimination  belween  the  genuine  constituents  of  the  martyrology  of  Bede  and  later  additions  it 
not,  as  Dom  Quentin  says  (p.  53),  necessary  for  hit  purpose;  nor,  in  view  of  the  particular  way 
in  which  Be  is  used  below,  is  it  necessary  here. 

*  My  friend  M.  de  Mely  sent  me  for  the  purpose  of  the  first  part  of  this  tract  on  the  Bos- 
worth  Calendar  a  photograph  of  the  MS.  which  has  proved  how  this  kind  of  reproduction  is  at 
times  more  useful  for  working  purposes  than  even  the  original.  Of  this  calendar  of  St.  Willi— 
brord,  the  most  venerable  of  our  English  hagiological  records,  I  hope  before  long  to  give  a  print 
accompanied  by  some  observations  on  the  old  Irish  copy  (seventh  century)  of  M  H. 


I46 


Wo  =  calendar  ofWorcesterinC.C.C.C.  '  Bede's    Poetical    Martyrology';  the 

MS.  391  [about  1060-1070?].  only  edition  by  Dom  Quentin  in  Les 

Y  =  the  brief  York  calendar  which  has  Martyrologes  historiques,  pp.  123-126 

hitherto    gone    under    the    name    of  [about  a. d.  750].' 


A.  THE   MARTYROLOGICAL  ELEMENT  IN  THE  ANGLO-SAXON 
CALENDARS 

For  the  purposes  of  this  enquiry  '  martyrological '  saints  are  to  be  understood 
as  distinguished  on  the  one  hand  from  'sacramentary'  saints  (almost  all,  martyrs) 
for  whom  a  proper  mass  (see  p.  15)  is  found  in  mass-books  before  the  ninth  cen- 
tury3 and  on  the  other  from  the  saints  (for  the  most  part  confessors)  who  lived  in 

1  It  is  indeed  pleasant  to  be  able  to  close  the  list  thus;  and  yet  it  is  impossible  to  suppress 
the  wish  that  the  identification  of  this  document  had  been  made  already  long  since  by  one  of  our 
fellow-countrymen,  so  interesting  is  it  as  a  production,  probably  when  he  was  a  school-boy  there, 
of  that  school  of  York  so  highly  vaunted  by  Alcuin. 

The  early  documents  (to  my  knowledge)  wanting  in  this  list  are  the  'Menologium  Anglo- 
Poeticum'  of  no  importance  here,  and  the  St.  Edmundsbury  calendar  in  Vatic.  MS.  Reg.  12  which 
doubtlesi  is  best  dealt  with  separately  (in  connection  probably  with  Do)  in  illustration  of  the  ca- 
lendars of  East  Anglia  and  the  Fen  country.  One  or  two  early  continental  documents  must  also 
not  be  lost  sight  of.  Just  as  brief  Canterbury  or  Lindisfarne  annals  carried  by  our  miisioners 
•broad  were  the  starting  point  of  the  Carolingian  annalistic,  so  was  it  too  in  a  measure  with. 
English  church  calendars.  The  Luxeuil  calendar  in  Paris  B.  N.  MS.  Lat.  14086  (formerly  Fonds 
S.  Germain  lat.  1311;  see  F.  Piper,  Karh  d.  Grossen  Kalendarium  und  Ostertafel,  Berlin,  1858,  p. 
60  seqq.)  long  ago  printed  by  Martene  and  Durand  (T/ies.  anted.  Ill  1591-1594)  has  nothing  to  do 
with  Englishry.  But  it  is  otherwise  with  the  'Calendarium  Floriacense'  printed  by  these  two 
Maurists,  Ampl.  Coll.  VI  650-652;  an  ultimate  English  origin  of  its  substratum  is  to  be  recognized 
I  think  even  among  its  rare  martyrological  entries.  But  this  document  has  not  been  used  below 
in  order  not  to  mix  up  English  hagiological  sources  that  are  certain  with  doubtful  ones.  It  may 
be  as  well  to  add  a  word  as  to  our  three  earlier  western  calendars,  Will,  Y,  and  that  of  Luxeuil 
just  mentioned.  These  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  the  starting-point  for  the  history  of  the  medi- 
aeval or  modern  church  calendars;  nor  is  Y  to  be  taken  as  a  'calendar  of  the  church  of  York' 
in  the  eighth  century.  They  are  rather  to  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  the  modern  birthday 
book.  The  real  and  effectual  origins  of  the  church  calendar  of  mediaeval  times  lie  in  the 
Sanctorale  of  the  mass-books. 

2  A  dissertation  is  in  hand,  and  well  advanced,  on  the  Sanctorale  of  the  earl/  mass  books 
from  the  seventh  century  to  the  eleventh,  dealing  both  with  the  calendar  and  the  individual  prayers 
of  each  mass,  which  it  is  hoped  may  prove  of  service  as  the  beginning  of  an  instrument  for  effect- 
ing a  classification  into  groups  and  families  of  the  later  mediaeval  missals.  Roughly  speaking  the 
calendar  of 'Sacramentary'  saints  for  our  present  purpose  may  be  taken  as  the  series  of  the  saints 
of  MS.  S  of  the  Appendix  (p.  317  seqq.)  of  Mr.  H.  A.  Wilson's  edition  of  the  Gelasianum. 

H7 


the  sixth,  seventh  and  eighth  centuries.  But  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  lines 
between  these  three  classes  of  saints  can  be  only  roughly  drawn;  it  is  for  instance 
probable,  almost  certain,  that  some,  perhaps  most,  of  the  last  class  (the  later  con- 
fessors) found  their  way  into  our  old  English  calendars  merely  through  the  mar- 
tyrologies. 

Four  calendars  will  come  under  particular  consideration  and  in  the  following 
order:  (rf)the  Glastonbury  calendar  in  the  Leofric  Missal  (G),  and  those  in  (b)  the 
Salisbury  cathedral  MS.  150  (S),  (r)  the  Bodley  MS.  Digby  63  (D),  and  (</)  the 
Cotton  MS.  Nero  A  11  (N),  of  which  last  a  print  will  be  given  below;  a  few 
words  will  be  added  as  to  (e)  the  metrical  calendar  in  Athelstan's  Psalter  Cotton 
MS.  Galba  A  xvm. 

(a)    THE  GLASTONBURY  CALENDAR  (G) 

This  shows  211  ' martyrological'  items  (=names).  It  naturally  occurred  to 
test  them  first  by  that  vast  congeries  of  martyrs'  names  the  Hieronymian  Marty- 
rology  (M  H)  and  afterwards  examine  with  the  same  object  the  various  excerpts 
or  Bloviates  of  that  great  compilation,  and  the  calendars  generally  up  to  the  eleventh 
century,  known  to  me  to  be  in  print.  As  the  result  one  Breviate  distinguished  itself 
markedly  as  compared  with  the  rest  (or  indeed  with  the  great  original  compilation 
M  H  itself)  by  the  number  of  items  common  to  it  and  G,  viz.  the  so-called 
Martyologhim  Gelkncme  (Gell)  a  compilation  of  the  eighth  century.  Of  the  2 1 1 
martyrological  items  of  G,  184  are  covered  by  M  H,  and  191  by  Gell;  which 
would  leave  a  residue  of  20  items  not  found  in  Gell  to  be  accounted  for  .  An 
account  of  this  residue  is  given  in  the  footnote.2     On  examination  of  this  list 

1  Those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  ancient  martyrologies  will  at  once  recognize  that  figure* 
like  this  can  be  only  approximately  correct;  the  common  corruption  or  slight  variation  of  name*, 
the  frequent  shiftings  by  a  day,  earlier  or  later,  by  the  copyist  neccsiitate  in  iuch  calculations  as 
the  present  here  and  there  adjustments.  All  that  can  be  done  is  to  keep  exact  record  of  the  way 
in  which  the  figures  given  have  been  arrived  at.  But  for  a  reason  that  will  be  obvious  I  have 
endeavoured  to  give  the  advantage  to  MH  as  against  Gell. 

2  Residue  of  G. 
1)  iv  id.  Jan.  Fault  pr.  hcrem.: — not  in  MH; — in  Be,  Ga,  O  E  M,  Y  (and  the  later  calendar* 
gener.."  e       |>N)«  2)   •*  k.  Feb.  et  trhtm  juerorunt  (companions  of  Babillus): — in  MH; 

— in  B,  Be,  Ga,  Ju,  Oeng,  R,  S,  Sh,  WV.  3)  xi  k.  Mar.  Policroni  ep.  et  m.\ — a  'Policro- 

nus'    at  xiii  k.  in  Eft  (<  nly); — in  N  at  xi  k  '  Pollicarpi*.  4)  iii  id.  Mar.  Cyriaci  diac.:— 

not  in  M  H; — in  Wo.  5)   v  id.  Apr.  Transitu:  Mariae  JEgyptiacae: — not  in  MH; — in  D, 

Ju,  R,  S,  Sh,  Wo.  6)  ii  k.  Maii  et  Sophiae: — not  in  M  H; — in  no  other  English  calendar. 

7)  iii   k.  Jun.   Felicis  pp.:— not  in   M  H;— in  B,  Do,  Ju,  R,  S,  V,  Wo,  N  ?  (see  Lib.  Pontif.    ed 
Duchesne   I,   154  n.  4).  8)  iii  non.  Jun.  Herasmi: — in   M  H  Ept  'Erasmi';  Win,  Bern 

'Nerasmi'; — in  Will  ('Erasmi  mar.'),  B.  9)  non.  Jul.  Marinae  v.: — in  Ept  (only); — in  B, 

Do,  Ju,  N,  OEM,  R.  10)   id.  Jul.  et  Florentii: — in   M  H;— in   Ga.  11)  xv  k. 

Aug.  Margaretae  a 'modern'  cult,  which  early  gained  popularity  in  England: — at  13  k.  in  B,   Do. 

I48 


of  twenty  items  it  will  appear  that  only  five  (or  perhaps  six)  are  found  in  M  H, 
whilst  two  occur  in  Ept  (St.  Willibrord's  manuscript)  only,  but  that  several  are 
found  in  one  or  other  of  our  own  earliest  hagiographical  records  (Be,  Ga,  OEM, 
Oeng,  Will,  Y;  or  not  infrequently  N  which  although  of  late  date  is  among  the 
most  archaic  of  the  pre-Conquest  calendars).  We  thus  seem  to  get  a  glimpse  of 
a  possible  insular  tradition  independent  of  the  continental  texts  of  M  H,  in 
addition  to  those  Campanian  elements  special  to  Ept  so  conveniently  brought  into 
prominence  by  Mgr.  Duchesne  in  the  Prolegomena  to  M  H  p.  ix. 

[b)  THE  CALENDAR  OF  SALISBURY  MS.   150  (S) 

On  perusing  this  calendar  we  are  at  once  struck  by  the  dissimilarity  of  its  set 
of  martyrological  items  from  that  of  G;  of  the  179  in  S.  45  only  are  found  in  G. 
And  yet  the  two  documents  seemingly  have  their  origin  in  the  same  region — 
South  Somerset  and  North  Dorset  or  South  Wilts — and  were  drawn  up  in  places 
not  many  miles  distant  from  each  other.  They  make  quite  a  different  start  at  2 
and  3  January:  G  with  '  Isidori,1  Macharii,  Genovefae';  S  with  '  Sindani,1  An- 
theri,  Genovefae '.  Of  the  martyrologies  or  calendars  that  have  like  S  '  Sindani, 
Antheri ',  the  so-called  '  Libellus  annalis  domni  Bedae  presbyteri '  (edited  by 
Martene  and  Durand  Thes.  anecd.  Ill  637  seqq.  from  a  St.  Maximin's  MS.),  seem- 
ingly a  Treves  compilation  of  the  early  years  of  the  ninth  century,  covers,  so  far  as 
I  can  find,  a  larger  number  of  the  items  in  S  than  any  other,  viz.  74,  thus  leaving  a 
residue  of  105  unaccounted  for.  But  when  S  is  confronted  with  the  Breviate  Gell 
this  latter  is  found  to  cover  122  items  whilst  the  full  MH  covers  but  1 16.  This 
raises  a  presumption  that,  different  as  S  and  G  are  in  appearance  so  far  as  their  mar- 
tyrological element  is  concerned,  both  may  really  derive  from  the  same  source, 
viz.  the  Breviate  Gell. 

Ju,  R,  S,  V,  Wo.  12)  vi  id.  Aug.  Affrae: — at  viii  id.  in  M  H  and  in  Ept  and  Bern  at  vii 

id.  also; — in  OEM.  13)  x  k.  Oct.  6666  companions  of  Maurice: — so  M  H  Ept  and  Bernt 

andN;  6585  fViss;  5585  Gell;  6600  OEM;  666  Band  S.  14)   iii^non.  Oct.  Cristinacv.: — ■ 

not  in  M  H;  in  D  ('ini'),  Ju,  N,  R,  S,  Sh.  15)   iii  non.  Oct.  et  Sauinae: — not  in  M  H; 

in  no  other  English  calendar.  16)   xii  k.  Nov.  Hilarionh  anachor,: — not  in  M  H; — in  B, 

D,  Do,  Ga,  Ju,  N,  OEM,  S,  WT,  WV.  17)  ii  non.  Nov.  Perpetue  v.: —  [?  as  to  M  H — 

the  name  undistinguished  in  a  list]; — Oeng  ('conjux  Petri'); — in  B,  D,  N,  S,  Sh,  V. 
18)  non.  Nov,  Felicis: — not  in  M  H; — 'Felix  prb.  et  Euseb.  man.'  Be;  'Euseb.  mon.'  Ga;  'Felicis 
et  Eusebii'  N,  S.  20)  non.  Dec.  Delfini: — not  in  M  H; — in  B. 

1  These  are  both  corruptions.  The  genuine  reading, 'Antiochiae  Syriae  Doni',  is  preserved 
in  one  MS.  only  (Vat.  Reg.  435,  de  Rossi's  MS.  N°.  35;  see  Prolegom.  p.  xxxvi).  In  Ept  this 
becomes  'isiridoni',  in  Whs  and  Bern  'siridoni'.  That  common  pitfall  to  continental  scribes  in 
the  eighth  century,  the  insular  'r',  is  the  causa  causans  of  both  the  'Sindanus'  and  'Isidore'  of 
the  martyrologies  and  calendars.  At  a  much  later  date  the  same  operating  cause,  this  time  at  the 
hands  of  an  insular  scribe,  produces  in  S  at  1  Nov.  'cerani  mar.'  (i.e.  the  'sacramentary'  saint 
'cesarius'). 

149 


A  detailed  scrutiny  of  the  57  martyrological  items  of  S  not  found  in  Gell 
results  in  greatly  diminishing,  if  not  wholly  removing,  any  difficulty  in  this  respect. 
For  it  is  found  as  follows: 

(1)  Nine  items  are  Nos  1,  2,  5,  7,  11,  13,  14,  16,  17  of  the  Residue  of  G 
examined  above  (sec  p.  148  n.  2). 

(2)  Eight  arc  cither  '  Inventions'  etc.  not  likely  to  be  derived  from  any  ordi- 
nary martyrology  (22  Apr.  Inv.  of  St.  Denis,  cf.  de  Rossi-Duchesne  Prokgom.  p.  xv; 
7  May,  Inv.  of  the  Holy  Nails;  8  July  Inv.  of  the  body  of  St.  Quintin  (cf.  Dom 
Quen'tin,p.  134); 24  Oct. 'sanctorum  conciliorum  et  aliorum  mille';  and  '  144,000' 
as  the  number  of  the  Holy  Innocents  28  Dec);  or  more  or  less  obvious  corruptions 
(7  June'  Julianus'  for  'Lucianus';  9  June  a  'Beatrix'  added  after  Faustinus  in 
imitation  of  the  '  sacramentary  '  feast  of  28  July;  10  Sept.  '  Gordiane '  for  the 
Gorgonius  of  the  'sacramentary'  feast  of  9  Sept.) 

(3)  The  calendar  of  the  Bodl.  MS.  Digby  63  (D),  to  be  dealt  with  imme- 
diatclv,  must  here  come  into  account  as  a  '  source '  of  martyrological  entries  in  S. 
Eight  such  items  occur  in  D  and  S  alone  among  our  English  documents,  and  of 
these  eight  none  are  found  in  Gell  and  but  one  in  MH.  Of  the  connection, 
direct  or  indirect,  of  S  with  D  there  can  therefore  be  no  doubt.  In  addition,jftr  items 
common  to  D  and  S,  but  occurring  also  in  some  one  or  other  of  our  old  English 
calendars  probably  came  like  the  preceding  eight  into  S  from  D.  These  are 
Nos  1,9,  11,  12  and  14  of  the  '  Residue  of  D ',  p.  151  n.  2  below. 

This  would  leave  27  items  to  be  examined  as  the  Residue  of  S,  particulars 
of  which  are  given  in  the  footnote.  Many  items  in  the  list  are  found  in  MH, 
and  in  this  point  the  Residue  of  S  stands  in  contrast  to  the  Residue  of  G;  but 
if  this  latter  left  doubt  as  to  the  existence  of  the  'independent  insular  tradition' 
spoken  of  above,  the  following  examination  of  the  Residue  of  S  will,  I  think,  tend 
to  dispel  it.  ' 

1  Residue  of  S. 
1)  iv  non.  Jan.  Sindani  (see  above  p.  149  n.  1).  2)  iii  id.  Jan.  Salui: — in  MH; — in 

Be.  3)  ix  k.  Feb.  Sauine: — in  Be  ('Sabinae';  in  M  H  a  'Sabin(i)us'  at  8  and  7  k.  Feb., 

and  'Sauini'  at  7  k.  in  Gell).  4)  vi  k.  Feb.  '■Juliani  fir.'; — in  M  H  ('  Julianae'); — in  Ga 

('Julianus').  5)  xiii  k.  Mar.  Siluani: — in  M  H  at  1 J  and  12  k.; — in  Oeng  and  Ga  at  12  k. 

6)  v  non.  Mar.  Floriani: — in  M  H; — in  Oeng.  7)  xv  k.  Apr.  Timothei: — in  M  H; — in  Oeng. 

8)  xii  k.  Maii  Marcelli: — not  in  M  H; — in  B.  9)  vi  non.  Maii  Athanasii: — not  in  M  H; 

—in  Be,  OEM;— in  Ju,  WT,  WV.  10)  kal.  Jun,  Teclae  i\:— in  M  H;— in  Will  (in  a 

hand  later  but  seemingly  of  first  half  of  cent,  viii),  Oeng,  Ga  (so  the  MS.;  Hampson  has  'Tutela'). 
11)   6  k.  Jul.  Salui: — not  in  M  H; — in  B  (see  pp.  36-37  above).  12)   5  k.  Jul.  Simphorose 

cum  i-iifiliis: — not  in  M  H;  (Oeng  has  'seven  brothers  in  Rome'); — in  N.  13)  ix  k.  Aug. 

Ixxxii  mar: — in  M  H  (lxxxiii;    Ept  reads  '  Victoris  et  alior.  lxxxiii';  Ga  at   this  day  has  'Victor 
miles').  14,  15)  iii  non.  Sept.  Faterni  et Feliciani: — not  in  M  H; — in   OEM  with  '  Aristomc 

(tec  the  editor's  remark  p.  xi).  16)  xi  k.  Nov.  Flauiani: — in  N  (in  M  H  the  name  occurs 

at  ix  and  viii  k.).  17,  18)  x  k.  Nov.  Crisanti  et  Daric.  19,  20)  iii  k.  Nov.  'see 

Maxime  et  NicomcJu' .  21,  22)   non.  Nov.  Felicis et  Eutebii :  — both  at  viii  id.  in  M  H  Ept 

and  If'iss,  and  in   Bern  'Felix'   only; — in   Be  'Felix  prb.  Euseb.  mon.',  in  Ga  'Euseb.  mon.',  in 

I50 


(<:)  THE  CALENDAR  OF  BODLEIAN   MS.  DIGBY  63   (D) 

It  is  unnecessary  at  this  point  to  consider  the  place  or  time  in  which  this 
calendar  had  its  origin.  It  is  enough  to  say  that  the  actual  manuscript  seems 
of  a  date  earlier  by  at  least  two  generations  than  that  of  the  calendar  in  Salisbury 
MS.  150.  The  '  martyrological '  element  alone  of  D  concerns  us  at  present. 
This  consists  of  88  items;  57  of  them  are  found  in  the  Breviate  Gell  but  only  50 
in  the  great  original  compilation  M  H. 

Of  the  3 1  items  not  in  Gell 

(1)  Six  are  N03  1,  2,  5,  14,  16,  17  of  the  Residue  of  G  (see  p.  148  note  2. 
above). 

(2)  The  following  are  the  eight  items  mentioned  above  as  occurring  in  D  and 
S  alone  among  our  English  documents,  and  (with  one  exception  as  regards  M  H) 
neither  in  MH  nor  Gell: 

v  id.  Mar.  '  Gurdiani  m.'  (perhaps  a  corruption  of  '  Gorgonius'  in  MH 

and  Gell  at  vi  id.); 
ii  id.  Mar.  Hilarii; 
10  k.  Apr.  Albini; 
ii  id.  Jul.  Dionisi  et  Hilarii; 
xvi  k.  Aug.  'Mariae  v.'  ('Marine'  S); 
xvii  k.  Nov.  cclxx  M  (this  is  the  item  in  MH); 
and  xv  k.  Nov.  Justiniane.  1 
This  leaves  1 7  items  to  be  accounted  for  as  the  Residue  of  D.      On  examina- 
tion the  list  given  below  2  will  be  found  only  to  confirm  what  has  been  said  above 

N  as  S.  23)  xvii  k.  Dec.  Donati: — in  M  H.  24)  xi   k.  Dec.  Felicitatis  m.\ — in 

M  H  at  16,  15,  9  k.  (Felicitas  is  with  Clement,  a  'sacramentary'  saint  at  ix  k.  Nov.;  in  M  H,  and 
in  Oeng,  Clement,  but  without  Felicitas,  is  given  at  xi  k.  as  well  as  at  the  true  date  ix  k.). 
25)  xiv  k.  Jan.  Secundi: — in  M  H  Ept  and  Whs  (not  in  Bern).  26)  xiii  k.  Jan.  Ignatii  ep, 

etmx — in  Ept  (only)  'rom.  depos.  Zephirini  epi  et  ignati  mar.'; — in  Oeng,  Sh.  27)  x  k. 

Jan.  Urbani: — in  M  H. 

1  This  full  entry  is  'iusti  et  iustiniane';  in  S  the  second  name  is  somewhat  indistinctly  given, 
but  with  D  before  us  there  can  be  no  doubt  what  is  meant,  though  it  is  possible  the  compiler  of 
S  may  have  had  also  before  him  at  this  point  the  entry  'Justi  mart.  Januarii'  as  in  Gell. 

*  Residue  of  D. 

1,  2)  vi  k.  Feb.  Saturnini  et  aliorum  xxx: — not  in  M  H; — in  N  (but  •xxii'),  S  ('Saturnini' 
only.)  3)   ivk.  Feb.  Sauincv.: — not  in  M  H  ; — 'Sabine'  at  v  k.  in  N.  4)  iv  id. 

Feb.  et  aliorum  xxx  (added  to  'Alexandri,  Ammonis') :— this  can  come  seemingly  only  from  a  text 
of  MH  that  is  like  Ept.  5)  xvii  k.  Apr.  Ciriaci:— in  M  H  (in  Whs  and  Bern  'iacae'); — in 

Be,Ga.  6,7)  xvi  k.  Apr.  'Pancrati'  and  kal.  Apr.  iVenati' :— I  cannot  find  either  ('Pancrati* 

is  probably  a  misreading  for  'Patrici'  which  D  by  mistake  gives  at  xvii  k.  Apr.)  8)  xii 

k.  Maii  Petri  diaconi:— -in  M  H  at  15  k  (so  too  in  Oeng,  G,  Wo);— in  Ju,  R.  9)   xvii  k. 

Jun.  Eugeniac:— not  in  M  H  ;— in  B,  Ju,  N,  S,  Sh,  Wo.  10)  xiv  k,  Aug.  Cristine  v.:— in 

the  Saint  Gall  MS.  915   of  Gell  (see  M  H  edd.  de  R.  and  Duch.  p.  93) ;— in  Oeng,  Ju,  R. 

151 


in  regard  to  the  '  Residues '  of  the  two  calendars  already  reviewed,  and  as  to 
evidence  of  an  early  and  independent  insular  hagiological  tradition. 

(rf)  THE  CALENDAR  IN  COTTON  MS.  NERO  D  II 

As  this  calendar  will  be  printed  below  detail  may  be  spared  here.  But  it  is 
well  to  observe  at  once  that,  though  of  the  eleventh  century,  it  is  full  of  archaisms 
and  frequently  associates  itself  (as  the  foregoing  lists  of  'Residues'  shew)  with 
the  group  above  described  as  forming  our  earliest  extant  hagiological  records. 
This  is  easily  explained.  It  comes  not  merely  from  the  most  remote  but  from 
the  most  Celtic,  backward,  part  of  the  country — the  furthermost  Wessex;  and 
gives  probably  the  type  of  calendar  existing  in  Devonshire  before  Leofric,  with 
his  foreign  education,  took  the  Church  of  these  parts  in  hand.  And  I  see  no 
sufficient  reason  for  assigning  it  to  that  yet  more  Celtic  land  west  of  the  Tamar 

Cornwall.     Even  the  Glastonbury  calendar  (G)  shews  an  advance  in  modernity 

and  polish  over  S;  but  the  calendar  in  the  Nero  MS.  is  of  the  old  world  indeed. 
Moreover,  from  the  mere  statistical  point  of  view  it  differentiates  itself  also  from 
G,  S,  D;  its  '  martyrological '  items  are  138  in  number,  but  of  these  only  68, 
that  is  less  than  half,  are  found  in  Gell,  and  in  M  H  hardly  more,  72;  thus 
leaving  (on  our  usual  basis  of  Gell)  70  items  to  be  accounted  for.  The  print 
given  below  will  afford  means  for  further  investigation  to  any  one  to  whom  such 
matters  may  appeal;  but  there  are  at  all  events  two  items  to  which  attention  ought 
to  be  called  here.  They  occur  in  N  only  among  our  English  documents  and  in 
the  Epternach  (St.  Willibrord's)  MS.  of  MH  and  its  accompanying  calendar  (Will). 
These  items  are:  ii  id.  Feb.  '  Castrenensis  m.'  (at  iii  id  Feb.  in  Ept  *  in  vulturno 
castrensis ';  in  Will  'castrensi  mar'),  and  iii  k.  Nov.  '  Maximiani '  (in  Ept  *  in  comsa 
maximi').  Both  belong  to  those  Campanian  items  to  which  Duchesne  (Prokgom. 
p.  ix)  has  called  attention  as  special  to  Ept.  But  the  Epternach  Martyrology, 
with  its  accompanying  calendar,  is  the  most  ancient  and  venerable  monument  of 
our  English  hagiological  tradition,  in  many  particulars  (and  those  not  merely  Cam- 
panian) independent  of  the  Gallic.  And  thus  this  insignificant  looking  calendar 
of  the  last  days  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Church  brings  us  across  the  centuries  into 
direct  touch  with  those  documents  and  literary  stores  brought  to  this  island  in  the 
seventh  century  by  Benet  Biscop  and  by  Hadrian,  a  notable  survival  whereof  is 
that  Neapolitan  calendar  or  Gospel  Capitular  of  the  seventh  century  which  now 

11)  xi  k.  Aug.  Marie  Magdalene: — not  in  M  H; — in  Be,  Ga,  OEM,  Oeng ;  and  in  all  the  later 
English  calendars  except  B,  G,  N  (and  Wo?)  12)  vii  k.  Oct.  Firmini: — not  in  M  H  ; 

— in  Ju,  N,  R,  S.  13)  vi  k.  Oct.  Cipriani: — not  in  M  H  ; — in  Be  and  N  'Cypr.  et  Justinae'; 

in  OEM  'Justina  and  Cypr.';   in  Ga  'Justina'  only.  14)   iii  id.  Oct.  Anastasii  ep.: — in 

M  H  and  Gell  as  'Athanasius'  (of  Alexandria)  but  Ept  reads  'Anathasi'  ; — in  N  'Anattati',  in 
S  4  Anastasii.'  15)  xvi  k.  Nov.  Florenci  ep.\ — (a  'Florentius'  in  M  H  and  Gell  at  vi  k.) 

16)  xvi  k.  Jan.  Ignatii  ep.  et  m.: — not  in  M  H; — in  Be,  Ga,  N,  V,  (and  in  the  'Calendarium 
Floriacense',  see  above  p.  147  n.  t)  17)  x  k.  J»n.  Victorice  (corr.  *ie')i — not  in  M  H; — 

in  Be  ('Victoriae '). 

152 


many  years  since  I  identified,  fixed  in  its  place  among  our  earliest  ecclesiastical 
memorials,  and  handed  to  Dom  Morin  for  publication. 

(<f)  THE  METRICAL  CALENDAR  OF  ATHELSTAN'S  PSALTER  (Ga) 
It  would  not  be  proper  to  close  this  survey  without  mention  of  Ga,  though 
so  different  in  character  from  the  calendars  hitherto  reviewed.  Its  set  of  martyro- 
logical  items,  (including  the  variants  in  the  Julius  MS.)  237  in  number,  differs 
from  those  of  G  and  S  as  much  as  the  sets  of  these  two  differ  from  each  other. 
And  the  origin  of  this  metrical  composition  distinguishes  it  from  G,  S,  D,  N,  no 
less  than  does  its  form;  the  intervention  of  an  Irish  hand  in  its  compilation  is 
unmistakable  (see  above  p.  5  1  n.  2). '  Still  eten  in  Ga,  Gell  cover  168  items;  but 
MH  as  many  as  191. 

Thus  much  for  facts  and  figures.  What  do  they  mean?  What  are  we  to 
think  of  it  all?  And  in  particular,  as  to  the  suggested  importation  of  the  document 
Gell  into  England: — does  this  get  countenance,  find  confirmation,  from  else- 
where; say,  from  another  set  of  facts? 

To  understand  the  combination  in  the  English  calendars  of  the  tenth  century 
of  a  '  sacramentary '  element  with  a  very  large,  indeed  decidedly  predominant, 
'  martyrological '  element,  we  must,  I  think,  once  more  go  up  higher  and,  in  this 
case,  start  from  the  last  point  at  which  we  can  take  our  stand  on  the  firm  ground 
of  contemporary  manuscripts;  that  is,  as  far  up  as  the  later  years  of  the  seventh 
century.  We  there  find  ourselves  in  presence  of  two  quite  distinct  methods  of 
practice,  two  different  systems.  If  we  take  up  a  Roman  book — the  Gelasianum — 
we  find  a  complete  cycle  of  proper  masses  for  saints  (p.  1 5  above)  extending  over 
the  year;  a  regular  and  duly  developed  Sanctorale.  The  Gallican  books  shew 
quite  another  system.  The  fullest  and  most  important,  the  Missale  Gothicum, 
has  indeed  some  five  and  twenty  such  masses;  but  the  value  and  meaning  of 
this  Sanctorale  appears  only  on  analysis.  When  deduction  is  made  of  masses  of 
older  feasts  of  apostles  etc.  (like  those  of  the  three  days  after  Christmas)  and  feasts 
of  recent  institution  (Assumption,  Peter's  Chair,  Leodegar  of  Autun,  etc.), 
the  residue  is  made  up  of  nine  masses  of  feasts  of  peculiarly  Roman  attachment 
(among  them  the  modern,  and  specifically  Gregorian,  John  before  the  Latin  Gate) ; 
and  but  five  that  can  be  in  any  sense  termed  local  '  Gallican  '.  This  number  of 
five  includes  the  commonly  revered  Martin,  Saturninus  of  Toulouse  (not  improb- 
ably suggested  here  by  the  '  sacramentary '  feast  of  the  Roman  Saturninus  of  the 
same  day  28  Nov.);  then  there  is  Eulalia,  a  Spanish  importation;  and  finally 
Symphorian,  and  Ferreol  et  Ferrucio,  that  is  the  great  local  feast  of  each  of  the 

1  There  would  seem  to  be  even  some  indication  that  the  martyrology  of  Oengus  may  have  been 
used.  The  verse  for  v  k.  Apr.  reads  lExultat  Maria  quinis  comptaque  kalendis';  Oengus' s  verse 
for  this  day,  as  translated  by  Dr.  Whitley  Stokes  runs  'May  she  call  us  &c.  &c.  may  Mary  magnify 
us,  the  great  Magdalena'.  The  28th  of  March  of  course  is  no  common  feast-day  for  St.  Mary 
Magdalen.  Its  origin  (so  far  as  Oengus  is  concerned)  probably  lies  in  this  item  found  only  in  Eft: 
•*It.  cessar.  mariae'. 

*S3 


two  great  churches  of  the  northern  part  of  the  Burgundian  kingdom,  Autun  and 
Besancon;  one  feast  apiece.  This  state  of  the  case  seems  to  suggest  that  the  idea 
itself  of  a  regular  Sanctorale  in  a  mass  book  was  not  native  but  borrowed  from  the 
model  of  Rome.  And  the  notion  that  thus  suggests  itself  seems  to  find  confirma- 
tion in  what  survives  of  other  manuscripts  of  liturgy,  of  the  same  or  an  earlier 
date,  that  are  of  pure  Gallic  origin, — the  Rickencviense,  the  Missale  GaUicanum 
and  the  Missale  Francorum.  Each  of  these  has  a  single  proper  mass  of  a  saint;  the 
first  and  second,  of  St.  Germanus  of  Auxerre,  the  third  of  St.  Hilar)-  of  Poitiers. 

But  if  proper  masses  for  saints  are  sparingly  represented  in  Gallican  books,  it 
is  in  these  that  the  system  of '  common  '  masses  for  saints  is  developed.  The 
Missale  Gothicum  has  a  set  of  such  '  common '  formulae  consisting  of  three  for  one 
martyr,  three  for  many  martyrs,  one  for  a  confessor,  one  for  many  confessors; 
whilst  the  Missale  Bobiense  (commonly  designated  Sacramentarium  GaUicanum) — a 
manuscript  seemingly  of  a  slightly  earlier  date  and  in  this  particular  a  valid  witness 
of  Gallican  practice — shews  still  further  precision  in  its  set  of  '  common  '  masses 
for  saints:  one  formula  each  for  apostles,  many  martyrs,  one  martyr,  a  confessor, 
a  virgin. 

Our  next  witness  is  that  vast  Gallican  compilation  which  has  been  variously 
named,  but  which  I  should  prefer  to  call  simply  '  Gelas.  saec.  z'iii',  to  distinguish 
it  from  both  the  pure  Roman  Gelasianum  not  now  forthcoming,  and  the  form, 
shewing  large  interpolations  made  in  Gaul  in  the  course  of  the  seventh  century, 
in  which  the  Gelasianum  appears  in  print.1  So  far  as  proper  masses  for  saints  are 
concerned  the  compiler  dealt  with  them  in  this  way:  he  adopted  in  its  entirety 
the  series  of  such  masses  found  in  the  Gelasianum  as  already  enlarged  by  inter- 
polations in  Gaul  before  the  end  of  the  seventh  century;  then  intercalated  at  the 
proper  dates  special  masses  for  the  saints  in  the  Gregorianum  not  already  feasted  in 
the  Gelasianum;  and  finally  added  masses  for  about  a  score  of  new  saints'  feasts  on  his 
own  account.  His  new  great  Sanctorale  thus  came  to  comprise  some  130  proper 
masses;  and  it  has  influenced  all  the  missals  of  the  later  mediaeval  period.  But 
in  spite  of  this  richness  he  did  not  throw  over  the  'common'  masses;  on  the 
contrary  he  developed  the  system  of  '  commons '  still  further,  and  provided 
a  common  mass  for  vigil  of  a  saint's  feast,  for  one  martyr,  for  one  confessor,  for 
virgins,  for  many  saints,  for  many  martyrs. 

Charlemagne,  by  the  imposition  or  propagation  in  his  states  of  the  Gregorianum 
towards  the  end  of  the  eighth  century,  in  this  matter  as  in  nearly  every  work  he 
undertook  or  measure  he  adopted,  designed  to  regularize  the  situation,  with  the 
effect  sooner  or  later  of  bringing  some  settled  order  into  matters  hitherto,  let  us  say, 
free.  The  Gregorianum  possessed  no  such  thing  as  a  '  Common  of  Saints'.  This 
Alcuin  provided  in  his  Supplement  Nos.  xlix-lv  in  an  orderly,  methodical,  manner 
— a  mass  each  '  for  one  ',  and  '  for  more  than  one  '  apostle,  martyr,  confessor;  but 
a  single  mass  for  the  category  of  virgins,  variously  entitled  in  the  manuscripts  '  in 
natale  virginis'   or   'virginum';    and   this  set    of  Alcuin's   is    the   kernel  ot    the 

1  Ai  a  matter  of  opinion  I  am  disposed  to  place  the  origin  of  the  Gelas.  saec.  via  at  about  a.  d. 
750-760  and  so  to  bring  it  into  connection  with  the  Romanizing  movement  of  the  time  of  Pippin, 
There  are  considerable  difficulties  in  the  way  of  placing  it  much  earlier  or  much  later. 

*54 


'  Commune  Sanctorum '  or  body  of  '  Common '  masses  of  saints,  of  the  present 
Roman  Missal. 

But  these  sets — ever  growing  sets — of  a  '  Common  of  Saints '  in  Gaul — what 
do  they  mean;  that  is,  mean  for  practice?  Clearly  they  must  have  been  designed 
for  use  not  for  mere  redundancy.  They  imply  the  existence  of  a  '  calendar '  of 
some  sort  different  and  distinct  not  merely  from  that  supplied  by  the  few  proper 
masses  of  the  Missale  Gothkum,  but  also  from  the  calendar  afforded  by  the  grand 
series  in  Gelas.  saec.  viii. 

What  saints  were  they  for  whom  the  '  Commune  Sanctorum '  elaborated  in 
Gaul  was  devised?  The  answer,  I  think,  is  not  far  to  seek.  Of  the  half  a  dozen 
manuscripts  (mostly  imperfect)  that  preserve  to  us  the  short-lived,  if  decisively 
important,  Gelas.  saec.  viii,  three  contain  an  item  proper  to  inform  us  in  this 
matter,  viz.  the  Gellone  Sacramentary  (Delisle's  No.  vii),  the  Rheinau  MS.  30 
(Delisle's  No.  ix),  and  the  now  lost  Rheims  MS.  of  the  priest  Godelgaudus 
(Delisle's  No.  xii).  Each  of  these  manuscripts  contained  a  'brief  martyrology; 
and  that  in  the  first-named  is  the  Breviate  of  M  H  so  often  cited  above  as '  Gell '. 
These  three  martyrologies  represent  three  different  types  of  the  same  '  calendar 
beyond  the  Sanctorale'  which  called  forth  a  regular  and  developed  Commune 
Sanctorum  as  found  in  the  Gallic  books  of  the  seventh  and  eighth  centuries.  The 
■  Martyrologium  Gellonense '  although  a  Breviate  of  M  H  is  an  ample  one;  the 
'  martyrologium  anni  circuli '  of  the  Rheinau  MS.  (printed  in  Delisle,  Appendice 
No.  i)  is  little  more  than  a  mere  calendar  after  the  modern  manner;  the  Rheims 
martyrology  of  Godelgaudus  seems  to  follow  a  middle  line  between  the  other 
two.1 

We  may  now  from  the  facts  adduced  conclude;  and  this  conclusion  is,  I  think, 
safe.  The  'Common  of  Saints'  was  designed  to  enable  a  priest  to  say  on  every 
or  any  day  not  'privileged' — that  is  not  provided  with  a  mass  otherwise,  and  not 
in  Lent  doubtless  or  other  such  times — a  mass  in  honour  of  a  saint  at  choice.  In 
a  word,  there  existed  commonly  in  practice  in  Gaul  (but  not  in  Rome)  the  same 
sort  of  practice  that  de  facto  exists  under  the  Roman  rite  at  the  present  day,  with 
its  repetition  of  the  same  'common'  masses  of  saints,  day  after  day  and  over  and 
over  again.  The  difference  in  the  two  cases  lies  in  this — that  in  the  former  case 
choice  by  the  priest  of  the  saint  in  whose  honour  he  should  say  such  'common ' 
mass  was  free,  now  it  is  fixed  by  the  Ordo. 

The  direction  really,  if  not  at  once  evidently,  given  by  the  liturgical  reforms 
of  Charlemagne  to  the  evolution  of  the  Church  Calendar,  is  of  course  variously 
felt  and  evidenced  in  different  churches  according  to  the  more  conservative  or  more 
innovating  mind  of  the  local  clergy.  For  instance,  the  calendar  of  a  sacramen- 
tary of  Senlis  assigned  by  Delisle  (No.  xxxii;  printed  Appendice  No.  ii)  to  about 

1  As  stated  in  the  text  the  Rheims  MS.  is  now  lost  ;  but  a  comparison  of  the  document 
printed  by  Canon  Ulysse  Chevalier  {Biblioth'eque  Liturgiquc  vol  vn,  Paris,  Picard,  1900,  pp.  i-2z) 
from  a  copy  of  the  seventeenth  century  with  the  extracts  given  by  Menard  (who  knew  the  original 
MS.)  in  the  Notes  to  his  'Gregorian  Sacramentary'  leaves  no  doubt  that  it  ii  the  martyrology  of 
Godelgaudus  of  the  last  years  of  the  eighth  century;  there  are,  however,  clear  indications  that  the 
late  copyist  was  tired  of  this  dull  series  of  unknown  names  and  left  out  some — or  many? 

155 


the  year  880,  although  by  its  form  it  seems  to  emphasize  its  martyrologica! 
character,  shews  the  'martyrological'  element,  as  compared  with  the  'sacramentary' 
and  local,  as  quite  subordinate,  and  the  document  is  already  a  mere  calendar  after 
the  modern  type.1  On  the  other  hand  the  calendar  of  the  sacramentary  of  St. 
Vaast  that  goes  under  the  name  of  Ratoldus  of  Corbie  (Delisle  No.  lvi,  printed 
Append'ue  No.  v)  seemingly  of  about  the  third  quarter  of  the  tenth  century  shews 
about  the  same  stage  of  development  as  our  G  and  S  which  are  its  contem- 
poraries. Some  few  of  the  Gregorian  Sacramentaries  of  the  ninth  century  (one 
of  the  church  of  Paris,  Ottoboni  MS.  313,  Delisle  No.  xxxv;  one  of  the  church 
of  Sens,  see  Delisle  No.  xliii  and  the  Prokgom.  to  M  H,  pp.  xiv-xv,  No.  5)  had  a 
martyrology  attached  in  the  older  style  shewn  by  the  manuscripts  of  Gelas.  sac. 
viii.  Did  those  who  used  these  missals  follow  the  old  practice  and  liberty  in 
regard  to  masses  of  saints  not  provided  for  by  the  Sanctorale?  The  dead  record 
cannot  tell  its  tale.  But  that  that  practice  lingered  long  centuries  later  seems  cer- 
tain; and  the  evidence  for  this  is  the  mass-book  of  the  early  years  of  the  twelfth 
century  that  goes  under  the  name  of  'The  Drummond  Missal'  (ed.  G.  H.  Forbes, 
Burntisland,  1882).  I  may  be  pardoned  for  lingering  a  moment  over  this  book; 
there  is  a  pathetic  interest  in  observing  the  end  of  things  that  have  outlived  their 
time.  Briefly  the  Drummond  Missal  shews  a  few  masses  for  the  greatest  feasts, 
the  great  mysteries,  with  a  very  elaborate  set  of  '  common  '  masses  of  saints  and 
at  the  end  a  'brief  martyrology'.  The  back-bone  of  this  martyrology  is  the  calen- 
dar of  the  Gregorian  Sanctorale  with  'sacramentary'  additions  common  at  the  date 
when  the  book  was  written;  there  is  also  a  particularly  large  number  of  early  Roman 
Pontiffs,  with  almost  at  each  day  one  or  more  Irish  saints.  This  book  of  the 
twelfth  century  comes  to  us  from  the  more  remote  and  solitary  regions  of  Scotland 
or  of  Ireland.  What  does  it  mean  if  not  this:  that  in  those  far  away  parts  of  the 
country  there  must  have  maintained  itself,  fresh  and  living  still,  the  manner  and 
system  in  regard  to  masses  of  saints  that  had  prevailed  in  many  a  district  of  Gaul, 
perhaps  through  the  larger  part  of  the  country,  five  hundred  years  earlier. 

With  the  explanations  given  it  is,  I  think,  not  difficult  to  see  how  a  document 
like  the  Mariyrohgium  Gellonense  can  have  been  really  the  basis  of  that  'martyro- 
logical '  element  of  our  English  calendars  of  the  tenth  and  eleventh  centuries 
which  when  examined  so  readily  give  evidence  of  its  influence  and  use.  More- 
over that  this  compilation  soon  obtained  a  wide  circulation  appears  from  the  copy 
in  print  which  has  two  local  entries  of  a  dedication  of  a  church,  one  of  Rebais 
in  the  diocese  of  Meaux  in  the  north,  the  other  at  Gellone  in  the  far  south, 
of  France.  Another  copy  still  extant  was  made  about  the  end  of  the  eighth 
century  at  St.  Gall  (cod.  S.  Gall.  914)  from  the  title  of  which  it  appears  that  the 
compiler  of  the  work,  whoever  he  was,  drew  hi;  materials  '  from  the  books  of  the 
cities  of  Lyons,  Vienne,  Autun,  and  Grenoble'.  It  was  therefore  early  known 
as  a  compilation  of  note.  I  see  then  no  reason  for  not  acquiescing  in  the  conclu- 
sion to  which  the  evidence  of  our  English  calendars  seems  clearly  to  point,  namely, 

1  The  calendar  printed  by  Delisle  Append.  N"  n  from  an  Amiens  Sacramentary  assigned  by 
him  to  the  second  half  of  the  ninth  century  (his  N"  xlii)  cannot  be  taken  as  if  a  practical  church 
calendar  at  all. 

156 


that  it  was  known  and  used  in  England  also.  It  may  be  asked  at  what  date  did 
a  copy  of  the  Martyrologium  Gellonense  come  to  our  shores.  The  date  of  the  MS.  of 
D  seems  to  indicate  that  this  must  at  all  events  have  been  not  later  than  the  closing 
years  of  the  ninth  century.  In  cases  of  this  kind  where  we  can  know  nothing,  fancy 
is  free;  but  I  should  personally  be  inclined  to  suppose  that  this  book  came  to  Eng- 
land towards  the  end  of  the  eighth  century  or  beginning  of  the  ninth,  rather  than 
at  a  later  time.  Our  political  historians  are  apt  to  slur  over  the  period  of  the 
Mercian  hegemony  and  greatness  and  pass  rapidly  on  to  the  rising  fortunes  of 
Wessex.  This  may  be  quite  a  right  course  for  them;  but  from  other  points  of 
view  this  Mercian  period  deserves  more  notice  and  indeed  exact  attention  than  it 
commonly  receives.  It  is  undoubtedly  not  so  attractive  as  the  first  half  of  the 
eighth  century  when  England  was  giving  to  the  continent;  the  Mercian  period 
was  rather  a  time  of  receiving  the  good  things  (such  as  they  were)  of  others, 
but  it  is  all  the  more  instructive,  perhaps,  on  that  account.  Among  the  things 
then  received  I  should  be  disposed  to  count  a  copy  of  the  then  recent  work,  the 
newly  made  Breviate  of  M  H,  compiled  from  '  the  books  of  the  cities  of  Lyons ' 
etc.  that  goes  under  the  name  of  Martyrologium  Gellonense. 

The  immediate  inducement  to  write  this  Addendum  on  the  martyrological 
element  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  calendars  has  been  already  mentioned;  but  the  Ad- 
dendum is  also  incidentally  an  attempt  to  carry  out  an  idea  of  that  master  and 
model  of  those  who  would  wish  to  learn — I  mean  the  late  G.  B.  de  Rossi:  the 
idea  that  is  suggested  in  the  first  chapter  of  his  Prolegomena  to  the  Hieronymian 
Martyrology,  section  III,  entitled  '  Kalendaria  vel  kalendariis  similia  derivata  ex 
Hieronymianis'.  England,  as  offering  a  small  number  of  documents  but  of  all 
ages  from  the  seventh  century  to  the  eleventh,  is  probably  the  best  field  in  which 
to  begin  such  an  investigation.  With  similar  enquiries  made  in  regard  to  the 
early  calendars  of  particular  regions  in  France  or  Upper  Italy  we  might  be  able 
to  see  more  clearly  into  these  matters  and  into  the  spread  of  cults  generally; — 
and  so  learn  too  whether  the  conclusions  here  arrived  at  in  regard  to  England  are 
confirmed  or  have  to  be  modified.1 

1  It  would  have  been  easy  to  crowd  the  preceding  pages  with  testimonies  in  regard  to  par- 
ticular taints  from  continental  calendar*  of  the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries.  But  there  was  a 
dissuasive  from  so  doing  besides  the  risk  (I  am  afraid  not  wholly  escaped  already)  of  making  it 
hard  to  see  the  wood  for  the  trees.  The  dissuasive  reason  is  thi» — that  those  calendars,  although 
they  may  shew  some  of  the  more  curious  'martyrological'  items  mentioned  in  the  lists  of  Residue 
given  above,  have  not  behind  them  in  these  particulars  a  genuine  and  native  (continental)  tradition, 
but  really  derive  from  that  early  insular  tradition  insisted  on  above  which  was  carried  hence  by 
missioners  and  teachers  to  the  continent  in  the  eighth  century.  As  a  'view'  I  incline  to  go 
further,  and  say  that  this  insular  tradition,  yet  to  be  investigated,  has  to  be  taken  into  serious 
account  for  the  future  and  further  criticism  of  M  H  itself.  For  the  purposes  of  that  investigation 
Dr  Whitley  Stokes's  edition  of  Oengus  for  the  Henry  Bradshaw  Society  is  inestimably  useful 
•nd  valuable.  As  to  the  quality  of  such  tradition,  or  the  particular  quality  of  inventiveness  which 
it  may  evidence,  nothing  is  said  here. 

l57 


B.  THE  GROUPING  OF  THE  ANGLO-SAXON  CALENDARS 

The  calendar  in  the  Digby  MS.  63  (D),  as  the  oldest  manuscript,  may  be  taken 
as  the  best  starting  point  for  the  enquiry.  Fortunately  it  gives  information,  defi- 
nite and  unmistakable,  as  to  its  origin.  It  was  stated  above  (p.  23),  and  has  been 
exemplified  in  the  Table  by  Arundel  MS.  60,  that  the  greater  feasts  are  in  some 
old  English  calendars  distinguished  by  a  cross.  This  is  so  with  D.  That  there 
may  be  no  uncertainty  as  to  the  character  of  such  feasts  a  list  is  given  in  the  foot- 
note of  the  entries  thus  marked,  with  the  exception  of  those  that  have  to  be 
particularly  considered,  namely:  19  Apr. ' Sci  Cuthberti  conf.';  24  April  'Sci  Wil- 
fridi  conf.';  7  May  'Sci  Johannis  on  beuerlic';  and  5  Aug.  'Sci  Oswaldi  regis'. 
One  other  entry,  but  not  marked  with  a  cross  must  also  be  mentioned:  4  Sept. 
'Sci  Cuthberti''1. 

So  far  as  internal  evidence  goes,  this  calendar  declares  itself  to  be  of  northern, 
probably  Yorkshire,  origin,  and  may  even  possibly  have  been  a  calendar  of  the 
church  of  York.  The  feast  of  St.  Cuthbert  at  19  April  need  cause  no  difficulty 
in  this  respect;  it  is  found  in  the  calendar  of  the  church  of  York  of  about  a.  d. 
750  (Y)  that  has  so  long  gone  under  the  name  of  '  Bede's  Poetical  Martyrology' 
now  restored  by  Dom  Quentin  to  its  true  position.     The  entry  of  4  Sept.  is  the 

1  The  feasts  in  D  marked  with  a  cross,  besides  the  few  mentioned  in  the  text,  are:  Circum- 
cision, Epiphany,  Purification,  Matthias,  Gregory,  Benedict  (in  March),  Annunciation,  Philip  and 
James,  Invention  of  Holy  Cross,  Augustine  abp.,  Nativity  of  St.  John  Baptist,  SS.  Peter  and  Paul, 
Paul,  James  ap.,  Laurence,  Assumption,  Bartholomew  (at  25  Aug.),  Beheading  of  St.  John 
Baptist,  Nativity  of  B.  V.,  Matthew  ap.,  Michael  archangel,  Simon  and  Jude,  All  Saints,  Martin, 
Clement  (see  pp.  23-24  above),  Andrew,  Thomas  ap.,  Christmas,  Stephen,  John  ev.,  Innocents. 
That  the  crosses  come  from  the  hand  that  wrote  the  calendar  appears  from  this:  the  scribe  first 
entered  the  feast  of  St.  James  ap.  at  a  wrong  date,  26  July,  and  then  correcting  himself  erased  this 
entry  and  made  one  at  the  proper  day,  the  25th.  But  the  cross  written  at  the  original  and  now 
erased  entry  can  still  be  discerned. 

It  is  of  some  interest  to  note  that  the  feast  of  All  Saints  (1  Nov.)  has  a  cross.  The  origins 
of  this  feast  seem  to  be  matter  of  difficulty  to  the  liturgist  and  historian  of  religion  (see  for  instance 
two  recent  books,  P.  Saintyves,  Les  Saints  successeurs  des  Dieux,  pp.  81-90;  Dom  Quentin,  La  Mar- 
tyrologes  historiqucs,  pp.  637-641).  But  from  a  letter  of  Alcuin  of  the  year  800  it  appears  that  he 
was  in  the  habit  of  keeping  the  'solemnitas  sanctissima'  of  All  Saints  of  1  Nov.  (with  a  previous 
three  days'  fast)  and  knew  his  friend  Arno  of  Salzburg  as  interested  in  its  propagation;  whilst  a 
Bavarian  council  over  which  Arno  presided  had  not  long  before  prescribed  for  the  feast  of  All 
Saints  of  1  Nov.  abstinence  from  servile  work  as  on  the  Monday,  Tuesday  and  Wednesday  after 
Easter  and  Pentecost,  St.  Laurence's  day  and  the  local  feast  of  the  dedication  of  the  church  (M. 
G.  Concil.  11,  197).  Our  present  feast  of  All  Saints  had  therefore  before  the  close  of  the  eighth 
century  already  a  history.  Whence  came  it?  By  way  of  conjecture  I  should  be  disposed  to  think 
it  was  imported  into  the  continent  from  these  islands,  that  it  issued  from  the  same  mint  as  the 
'feast  of  the  Saints  of  Europe',  and  that  the  entry  in  Oengus  at  1  Nov.  is  a  local  record  of  its 
origination. 


.58 


true  northern  feast  of  a  translation  of  St.  Cuthbert  which  this  calendar  brings 
back  to,  at  all  events,  the  ninth  century.  Introduced  into  the  south,  perhaps  by 
this  very  calendar,  it  did  not  long  maintain  its  separate  existence  but  by  the 
eleventh  century  was  combined  with  and  merged  in  a  translation  of  St.  Birinus. 
The  affinities  of  D  after  it  came  south  are  with  the  west  country  alone;  we  have 
already  seen  (p  151)  its  close  relationship  with  S.  Whether  the  MS.  Digby  63  was 
written  at  Winchester  it  is  for  the  palaeographer  to  judge;  that  the  calendar  was 
at  Winchester  already  some  time  in  the  tenth  century  appears  from  the  entries  in 
a  later  hand  of  the  two  feasts  of  St.  Swithun  at  2  and  1  5  July;  and  the  deposition 
of  St.  Elphege  of  Winchester  is  also  added  at  1  2  March.  But  the  connection 
of  the  MS.  otherwise  with  Winchester,  still  less  its  origination  there,  can  receive 
no  countenance  from  the  internal  evidence  of  the  calendar  itself;  and  the  Win- 
chester calendar,  in  the  earliest  form  in  which  we  know  it,  shews  no  trace 
whatever  of  having  been   influenced  by   D. 

One  item  marked  with  a  cross  deserves  particular  notice, — the  primitive  feast 
of  St.  Wilfrid  on  24  April.  This  is  also  the  day  given  in  the  '  Old  English 
Martyrology ',  a  compilation  said  to  be  of  the  second  half  of  the  ninth  century 
and  thus  about  contemporary  with  our  manuscript.  In  the  south  this  feast  had  to 
contend  with  that  of  St.  Mellitus  of  Canterbury,  which  was  kept  on  the  same 
day  and  is  alone  recognized  in  G,  B,  Sh.  The  Salisbury  MS.  and  N,  both  old- 
fashioned  and  uninfluential,  combined  the  two  traditions.  But  in  the  event 
St.  Wilfrid  on  24  April  fell  out  of  consideration  in  the  calendars,  except  that  of 
York;  which,  however,  as  early  as  the  twelfth  century  kept  the  day  as  a  feast 
of  a  'Translation';  and  12  October  was  universally  received  as  the  day  of  Saint 
Wilfrid's  'depositio'.  But  the  metrical  calendar  of  the  church  of  York  c.  750 
(Y)  is  explicit:  '  Quoque  die  (that  is,  24  April)  Praesul  penetravit  Wilfridus 
alma  .  .  .  culmina  coeli '.  When  this  record  was  written  there  may  even  have 
been  still  living  among  the  clergy  of  that  church  men  who  remembered  the 
receipt  of  the  news  there.  The  24th  of  April  in  709  fell  on  a  Wednesday;  and 
if  St.  Wilfrid  died  in  the  later  part  of  the  day,  it  is  easy  to  understand  how  and 
why  '  the  abbat '  (as  recorded  by  Wilfrid's  friend  and  biographer  Eddius  in  the 
'  Life '  c.  61)  regularly  said  mass  for  him  on  Thursdays.  The  date  of  St.  Wilfrid's 
death,  24  April,  seems  quite  well  authenticated;  its  assignment  to  3  Oct.  rests 
on  nothing  more  than  fragile  conjecture. 

There  seems  no  sufficient  evidence  to  warrant  a  definite  statement  as  to  the 
influence  of  D  on  any  other  calendar  than  S1.      It  was  incidentally  mentioned 

1  D  (alone  among  the  English  calendars)  has  at  16  Oct.  'S.  Mummolini'.  In  the  later  years 
of  the  seventh  century  Mummolinus  was  bishop  of  Noyon  and  Tournay,  and  thus  exercised  sway 
in  the  country  behind  the  Terouanne  region,  in  company  with  several  saints  of  which  latter  his 
name  doubtless  came  into  D.  The  following  list  of  the  group  of  saints  of  the  Terouanne  region 
in  D  will  shew  how  here  too  S  is  influenced  by  D,  whilst  this  cannot  be  said  of  the  Winchester 
calendar. 

6  Feb.    Dep.  Amandi  et  Vedaiti  In  WV,  WT,  S,  and  commonly. 

7  June  Transl.  Audomari  In  WV,  and  S,  Ju,  R,  N  (at  6  June). 
16  July    Transl.  Bertini                                           In  S  only. 

159 


above  (p.  38  n.  1)  that  when  the  calendar  in  the  Missal  of  Robert  of  Jumieges 
(R)  is  examined  as  a  whole  its  affinities  are  found  to  be  with  the  west-country 
group.  To  this  group — which  distinguishes  itself  on  the  one  hand  from  the 
group  G,  B,  Sh,  (cf.  p.  61  n.  1),  and  from  the  Winchester  calendar  on  the  other — 
attention  must  now  be  directed.  With  its  disconcerting  variety  of  peculiarly 
local  feasts — St.  Cuthman  of  Steyning  in  Sussex,  St.  John  of  Beverley,  St.  Oswald 
of  Worcester  (and  Ramsey  and  York)  and  St.  Tibba  of  the  fen-country — R,  the 
oldest  member  of  the  group,  is  not  quite  an  easy  document  to  disentangle  until 
it  is  analyzed  and  confronted  with  the  other  Anglo-Saxon  calendars  extant.  The 
simplest  and  shortest  way  of  evidencing  its  relationships  will  be  to  give  a  list  of  its 
entries  that  are  really  peculiar  with  a  mention  of  all  the  documents  in  which  each 
item  appears.     The  list  is  as  follows: 

8  Feb.   Cuthman  cf.— R,  Ju,  Wo,  N. 
1  1      „      Radegund  v. — R,  Ju,  Wo,  G. 

27      „      Invention  of  the  Head  of  St.  John   Baptist — Oeng,  OEM,  R, 

Ju  ('corporis'),  Wo,  N. 
17  Mar.  Witburga  and  Patrick — R,  Ju,  Wo. 

19  „      Joseph,  Spouse  of  the  B.  V.1 — Oeng,  R,  Ju,  Wo,  the  Winchester 

calendar  WV,  and  Sh. 
1  Apr.    Barontus  monk' — R,  Ju. 

20  Apr.    Peter  Deacon — D,  R,  Ju. 

2+     „     Wilfrid— OEM,  D,  R,  Ju,  N,  S. 
7  May  John  of  Beverley— OEM,  D,  R,  Ju,  Wo,  N,  Do. 

9  „     Translation  of  St.  Andrew — R,  Ju,  N  (later  hand  in  V). 

21  June  Apollonaris  and  Leuthfred — R,  Ju. 

19  July    Cristina  v.— OEM,  D,  R,  Ju  (?  if  erased  in  Wo). 

20    „  Nat.  Vulmari  In  WV,  WT,  S,  and  commonly. 

5  Sept.  Dep.  Bertini  abb.  In  WV,  WT,  S,  and  commonly. 

9    „  Audomari  In  S,  Do. 

20    „  Amandi  cf.  In  S,  Sh. 

26  Oct.  Nat.  Amandi  ep.  In  S,  Ju,  R,  V  . 

9  Nov.  Winnoci  cf.  In  S,  Ju,  N,  V. 

It  is  of  no  consequence  for  the  present  purpose  whether  the  three  entries  of  Amandui  may 
relate  to  the  same  person  or  not. 

1  I  cannot  trace  this  back  earlier  than  Oengus  and  his  contemporary,  the  martyrology  in  th« 
Rheinau  MS.  30  (Delisle,  Mem.  App.  No.  I).  This  seems  to  point  to  Ireland,  as  the  original 
source  of  both. 

3  This  is  I  fancy  no  other  than  the  monk  Barontus  who  in  Southern  Italy,  with  his  contem- 
porary Fursey  in  our  northern  regions,  inaugurated  that  literature  of  'Visions  'which  still  pure  in 
Bede  not  long  after  his  day  was  used  in  Mercia  for  political  purposes  and  was  to  be  thus  employed  so 
effectively  later  in  the  days  of  the  declining  Carolingian  house.  Though  overlooked  seemingly  by 
Potthast,  the  Vision  of  Barontus  was,  if  I  rightly  remember,  given  at  least  in  part  by  Waitz  in  the 
Scriptores  rerum  Langobardicarum;  that  it  was  known  in  England  in  the  later  Anglo-Saxon  timet 
appears  from  what  still  remains  of  the  burnt  Cotton  MS.  Otho  A  xm. 

l60 


18  Aug.  'scae  elenae  reg' — R,  Do,  (later  hand  in  V),  N  (19  Aug.). 
23      „     Timothy  and  Apollinaris — R,  Ju  (later  hand  in  V). 
26  Oct.   Amandus  bp. — D,  R,  Ju,  S,  V. 
30     „      Ordination  of  St.  Swithun — R,  Ju,  WV. 
4  Dec.   Benedict  abb.— R,  Ju,  Wo,  N,  WT,  WV,  Do. 

I  do  not  feel  able  to  make  any  suggestion  as  to  the  place  where,  or  the  par- 
ticular church  (if  any)  for  which,  R  may  have  been  written.  As  pointed  out 
p.  59  seqq.  the  number  of  Winchester  feasts  it  contains  is  not  satisfactory — still 
less,  cogent — evidence  of  its  connection  with  Winchester.  The  utmost  that  can 
be  said  is  that  it  is  doubtless  the  earliest  extant  example  of  that  wholesale  adoption 
of  such  feasts  which  soon  became  general.  It  is  enough  here  to  have  indicated 
its  affinities,  which  seem  evidently  to  shew  that  it  (that  is,  a  calendar  of  this  type) 
was  at  any  rate  a  '  source  ',  directly  or  indirectly,  of  the  two  calendars  Ju  and  Wo 
that  have  been  commonly  assigned   to  Worcester  just  before  the  Conquest. 

It  is  true  that  these  two  last  named  calendars  are  substantially  the  same  docu- 
ment. But  a  distinction  has  to  be  made  between  them.  That  the  calendar  in 
C.  C.  C.  C.  MS.  391  is  a  calendar  of  the  church  of  Worcester  in  the  earlier  years 
of  St.  Wulstan's  episcopate  there  seems  no  reason  to  doubt.  But  it  is  otherwise 
with  the  calendar  of  the  Bodleian  MS.  Junius  99.  The  following  lists  of  the 
strictly  local  feasts  in  these  two  documents  will,  I  think,  at  once  make  clear  the 
church  to  which  Ju  is  to  be  assigned. 

C.C.C.C.  MS.   391  BODLEIAN  MS.  JUNIUS  99 

28  Feb.  Oswald  abp.  Oswald  abp. 

1 5  Apr.  Transl.  of  Oswald  abp.  Transl.  of  Oswald  abp. 

1  June  Wistan  mart. 

1 3  Sept.  Egwin  bp.  Transl.  of  Egwin  bp. 

8  Oct.   (an  erasure)  Translation  of  Os-      (added  in  orig.  hand  to  Transl.  of  SS. 

wald  abp.  Aidan  and  Ceolfrid)  '  Oswald  '. 

10  Oct.  .    Transl.  of  SS.  Egwin  and  Othulf. 

24  Nov.  Odulph  abp. 

31  Dec.  Deposition  of  St.  Egwin. 

The  Junius  MS.  99  thus  at  once  shows  itself  to  be  a  calendar  of  Evesham;  for 
the  proof,  it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  generally  to  the  documents  in  Mr.  W.  D. 
Macray's  edition  of  the  Evesham  Chronicle  (Rolls  Series)  and  to  recall  that  (as  the 
tract  on  the  Resting  Places  of  English  Saints  has  it)  'St.  Egwin  the  bishop  resteth 
at  Evesham'1  and  so  is  a  specifically  Evesham  (not  Worcester)  cult.  There  is 
here  neither  time  nor  space  (and  doubtless,  indeed,  there  is  not  call)  to  enter 
on  a  comparison  of  these  two  calendars.  Two  items,  however  in  the  Evesham 
calendar,  but  not  in  the  Worcester,  are  too  suggestive  to  be  passed  over  in  silence. 
They  are  these:  16  May  'Sci  Brendani  abb.',  17  May  'Sci  Torpetis  mart.'. 
Neither  occurs  in  any  other  of  our  early  English  documents.      But,  singularly 

1  F.  Liebermann,  Die  Heiligen  Englandt  p.  19. 

l6l 


enough,  the  very  'brief  Martyrology  of  the  Drummond  Missal  (see  above  p.  156) 
has  (with  two  Irish  names)  at  16  May  'sancti  abbatis  et  confessoris  Braendini', 
and  (with  two  Irish  names)  at  17  May  'sancti  Torpetis  martirys'  (ed.  G.  H. 
Forbes,  Calendar  p.  1  5).  But  is  it  possible  that  such  a  document  as  the  mar- 
tyrology preserved  to  us  in  the  Drummond  Missal  could  have  found  its  \^ay 
to  Evesham!  That  it  might  easily  have  come  to  the  neighbourhood  of  Worcester 
seems  not  unlikely.  The  Liber  Vitae  of  the  church  of  Durham  preserves  one  list 
of  a  whole  community,  viz.  of  the  cathedral  priory  of  Worcester,  at  some  time 
seemingly  during  the  episcopate  of  bishop  Sampson  (1096-1112).  We  at  once 
recognize  Hemming,  the  compiler  of  the  Worcester  cartulary,  and  the  chronicler 
Florence;  among  the  rest1  there  are  at  all  events  two  Irish  names,  Columban  and 
Patrick.  Is  it  through  one  of  these  that  the  chronicle  of  the  Irishman  Marianus, 
which  our  English  Florence  has  made  the  basis  of  his  own,  came  to  Worcester? 
If  Irish  members  and  an  Irish  chronicle  are  found  at  Worcester,  may  there  not 
have  been   Irish  members  and  an   Irish  martyrology  at  neighbouring  Evesham? 

There  remain  to  be  considered  V  and  N."  V  at  once  distinguishes  itself  from  all 
other  extant  Anglo-Saxon  calendars  by  a  considerable  series  of  foreign  names.  It  was 
suggested  above  (p.  61  n.  1)  that  it  may  be  a  calendar  of  the  church  of  Wells  under 
bishop  Giso  the 'Lorrainer'.  As  the  case  is  of  interest  it  will  be  well  before  consider- 
ing V  to  give  an  example  of  a  somewhat  similar  mode  of  proceeding  on  the  part 
of  another  '  Lorrainer ',  but  a  '  Lorrainer '  by  education  only  not  birth,  Giso's 
neighbour  the  English-minded  Leofric  of  Exeter. 

The  following  is  Leofric's  case.  Harl.  MS.  863  is  a  psalter  of  the  eleventh 
century  to  which  is  prefixed  an  Exeter  calendar  of  the  later  part  of  the  twelfth. 
A  feature  of  this  psalter  is  a  litany  (ff.  io8h — 1 1  ib)  which  from  the  number  of  its 
invocations  may  be  fairly  called  stupendous.  A  certain  number  clearly  designate 
the  diocese  of  Exeter  as  place  of  origin.3  The  particular  interest  of  the  litany 
centres,  however,  in  the  three  last  invocations  of  confessors:  'See  Leo',  'See 
Bardo ',  '  See  Simon  '.  At  a  little  distance  from  the  name  Leo,  in  rather  smaller 
characters  but  seemingly  in  the  same  ink,  is  the  numeral  '  ix '. .  Bardo  is  the 
archbishop  of  Mainz  in  1031-1051  whose  cult  even  in  his  own  region  has  been 
quite  restricted,  local,  subordinate.     His  name  in  an  English  litany  of  the  eleventh 

1  The  Surteei  Society's  print  of  the  Liber  Vitae  (p.  14)  is  at  this  point  unfortunately  defective 
b/  the  omission  of  twenty-two  names  (among  which  Patrick's)  and  a  seeming  intrusion  of  others 
that  do  not  belong  to  the  Worcester  community  list  (see  Downside  Review  iv,  1885,  p.  9). 

'  It  is  curious  that  though  belonging  to  another  part  of  the  country  both  these  calendars 
»eem  to  have  found  their  way  about  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century  to  the  neighbourhood  of 
Worcester.  Among  numerous  entries  by  a  later  hand  in  V  are  these:  1  Jan.  Wistan;  2  Jan. 
Deposition  of  Egwin  bp.  and  cf.  (on  erasure);  and  19  Aug.  Credan  abb.  and  cf.  This  can  only 
mean  Evesham.  The  case  of  N  is  not  so  clear;  a  later  hand  adds  at  30  June  'sci  Germani  et  sci 
Neoti  prbri*  and  at  31  Dec.  'et  sci  Eguini  epi'. 

'Confessors:  Neote,  Maucanne  (the  Cornish 'Mawgan ');  virgins:  Sativola,  and  perhaps 
Tova,  with  Welvela  and  Pinnosa.     The  last  martyr  invoked  is  Olave  (see  above  p.  48  n.  2). 

l62 


•century  is  a  matter  as  well  for  enquiry  as  surprise.  Moreover  the  immediately 
preceding  invocation  'Leo'  cannot  be  of  St.  Leo  I  who  occurs  at  the  very  begin- 
ning (the  fourth  name)  of  the  invocations  of  confessors.  Is  the  Leo  at  the  end,  as 
the  numeral  would  indicate,  really  pope  Leo  IX,  whose  cultus,  if  like  Bardo's 
never  very  famous,  began  nevertheless  very  soon  after  his  death?  An  entry  in  the 
calendar  of  the  Leofric  Missal  (our  calendar  G),  taken  in  conjunction  with  the 
invocation  in  the  litany, iseems  to  leave  no  room  for  doubt  on  this  point.  At  the 
foot  of  the  fol.  40b  (see  the  Editor's  '  Introduction  '  p.  1),  which  contains  the 
month  of  April  of  the  calendar,  is  this  entry  in  a  later  hand  '  et  F.  sci  leonis  papae 
et  conf.  ix'  {Leofric  Missal 'p.  2  6).  Pope  Leo  IX  died  on  1 9  April  and  this  is  the  day 
of  his  feast;  the  Gelas.  saec.  viii  feast  of  St.  Leo  I  is  1 1  April.  If  this  latter  pope 
had  been  meant,  the  entry  could  easily  have  been  made  at  1 1  April  after  St. 
Guthlac.  The  line  of  19  April  has  not  merely  the  original  entry  '  Gagi  et  Rufi  ' 
but  also  a  later  entry  of  St.  Elphege  and  (seemingly)  a  still  further  entry  of  the 
ordination  of  Leofric  himself  running  in  the  succeeding  line  of  the  20th.  There 
was  thus  no  room  for  the  entry  of '  St.  Leo  pope  and  confessor  ix '  at  19  April  and 
it  is  obvious  why  such  entry  should  be  at  the  foot  of  the  page.  In  the  circum- 
stances there  seems  no  reasonable  ground  for  doubt  as  to  the  identity  of  the  person 
meant,  in  both  calendar  and  litany.  It  has  been  concluded  (see  e.g.  Diet,  of  Nat. 
Biogr.)  from  the  tenor  of  Leofric's  letter  to  Leo  IX  proposing  the  transfer  of  the 
episcopal  see  from  Crediton  to  Exeter  that  they  must  have  been  already  personally 
known  to  each  other.  This  finds  confirmation  in  the  two  entries  just  discussed; 
and  in  the  invocations  of  SS.  Leo  IX,  Bardo,  and  Simon1  of  the  Exeter  litany  we 
may  also  see  record  by  a  grateful  mind  of  incidents  of  Leofric's  early  career  pro- 
bably in  kindnesses  shewn  to  him  when  he  was  a  student  abroad.  However  this 
may  be,  we  need,  I  think,  have  no  scruple  in  assigning  to  bishop  Leofric  the 
origin  of  the  psalter  Harl.  MS.  863;  and  indeed  on  yet  better  grounds  than  the 
Collectar  Harl.  MS.  2963  that  now  goes  by  his  name.2 

If  cults  so  remote  from  English  interests  or  tradition  could  thus  be  introduced 
into  his  church  of  Exeter  by  an  Englishman  like  Leofric  on  the  score  of  mere 
personal  veneration  for  contemporaries  whom  he  had  in  some  way  known,  we  may 
not  be  surprised  if  a  '  Lorrainer '  born  and  bred  gave  effective  expression  to  his  native 
preferences  in  a  calendar  so  abnormal  as  V.  When  these  personal  elements,  as 
we  may  call  them,3  are  removed  V  becomes  a  commonplace  specimen  of  the  English 

1  Probably  the  hermit  of  the  Black  Gate  at  Treves. 

*  Any  surprise  at  the  specific  designation  'ix'  in  the  calendar  and  litany  it  lessened  when  we 
recall  how  the  use  of  the  successional  number  of  the  pope  in  papal  bullae  was  first  introduced  it 
would  seem  in  the  very  brief  pontificate  of  Leo's  immediate  predecessor  Damasus  II  (1048)  and 
definitively  adopted  in  that  of  Leofric's  friend  Leo  IX.  And  although  it  may  be  that  Leofric  was 
not 'king's  chancellor',  he  was  in  quite  a  good  way  of  knowing  something  of  contemporary  papal 
bullae,  and  the  stress  now  laid  on  the  reigning  pope's  number. 

3  The  items  in  question  (an  uninterestingly  miscellaneous  series)  are:  9  Feb.  Ansbert  of 
Rouen;  28  Feb.  Romanus  abb.  of  Mont-Jura  north  of  Lyons;  13  May  Servatus  of  Tongresj 
23  May  Desiderius  of  Vienne;   II  Aug.  Gaugericus  of  Cambray;  20  Aug.  Philibert  of  Jumiegesj 

163 


calendar  of  the  time.  Of  what  church  was  it  the  calendar?  There  seem  to  be  two 
possible  indications.  At  21  March  is  the  entry  in  another  hand:  '  Obitus  heri- 
manni  episcopi';  this  can  hardly  be  other  than  Herman,  bishop  successively 
of  Ramsbury,  Sherborne,  and  Sarum,  who  died  in  1075.1  On  the  other  hand  the 
calendar  shews  in  the  original  hand  one  saint  of  quite  local  cult,  27  Nov.  '  Sci 
Congari  conf.'  The  liturgical  cult  of  St.  Congar  seems  entirely  confined  to 
Somerset.'  In  the  circumstances,  the  probable,  perhaps  only  admissible,  conclusion 
is  that  inVwe  have  the  calendar  of  the  church  of  Wells  under  the  'Lorrainer'  Giso. 
There  remains  the  calendar  N.  As  a  print  now  follows  any  account  of  it 
is  unnecessary,  and  it  is  sufficient  to  refer  here  to  what  is  said  above  p.  152  and 
to  incidental  notices  from  p.  1 48  onwards.  Any  remarks  that  may  seem  called  for  on 
particular  items  will  be  made  in  footnotes.  In  regard  to  its  martyrological  entries 
it  must  be  enough  here  to  note  that,  insufficient  as  M  H  or  Gell  may  have  proved 
for  the  elucidation  of  that  clement  in  N,  it  certainly  does  not  seem  to  be  drawn 
from  the  later  historical  martyrologics,  Ado,  Usuard  etc.  that  came  so  greatly  into 
vogue  from  the  ninth  century,  nor  from  a  martyrology  such  as  that  (cent,  xi)  still 
preserved  at  Exeter. 

3  Sept.  Remaclus  of  Stavelot  and  Mansuetus  of  Toul;  3  Oct.  the  (English)  Two  Ewalds;  8  Oct. 
Benedicta  v.  of  the  region  of  Laon;  12  Oct.  Gangolfus  of  Varennes  in  Burgundy;  15  Oct.  Lu- 
pus bp.  (of  Angers);  21  Oct.  the  Eleven  Thousand  Virgins  of  Cologne;  23  Oct.  Sevennus  of 
Cologne;  3  Nov.  Hubert  of  the  Ardennes;  12  Nov.  (the  English)  Lebuin  of  Deventer;  14  Dec. 
Nicasius  of  Rheims;  23  Dec.  Servulus  (a  poor  man  of  Rome  mentioned  by  St.  Gregory). 

1  Two  MSS.  of  the  A.  S.  Chron.  have  x  kal.  Mar.  (see  Mr.  W.  G.  Searle's  Anglo-Saxon 
Bithopi  etc.  p.  85). 

2  In  the  later  middle  ages  St.  Congar  is  found  in  the  calendar  of  Bath  only,  not  of  Wells, 
whose  speciality  was  then  St.  Decuman.  The  case  allows  of  a  probable  explanation  thus:  after 
the  Conquest  Bath  became  the  principal  church  of  the  see  and  took  (if  it  had  not  already)  the 
eult  of  St.  Congar.  On  the  restoration  of  Wells  as  the  residence  of  the  bishop  to  its  early  primacy 
this  church  may  have  preferred  a  local  cult  proper  to  itself  leaving  Congar  to  Bath. 


164 


COTTON  MS.  NERO  A  II 

(ff.  ?—P) 
JANUARY 


Kal. 

Circumcisio  Dni 

xiii 

kal. 

Feb 

.  sebastiani  et  Fabiani 

iv    nor 

:. 

Isidori  .  epi 

xii 

»> 

>> 

agne  .  u  . 

iii     >M 

Genofefe  .  u  . 

xi 

» 

» 

uincentii  .  m 

viii   id. 

Epiphania  Dni 

x 

» 

>> 

emerentiane  .  u  et  m 

v       „ 

sci  aethelmodi  .  c1 

ix 

» 

>> 

babilli  epi  et  m 

»       ,t 

benedicti  .  abb 

viii 

>> 

»> 

Convertio  pauli 

id. 

Ocb  .  Epiphania 

vii 

>9 

5J 

policarpi .  m 

xix  kal. 

Feb. 

Felicis .  epi 

vi 

J> 

»> 

saturnini  .  cuw  xxu  . 

xviii  „ 

>> 

Calesti  pape 

mar 

et  mauri  abb 

V 

» 

>> 

Sabine  .  u  . 

xvii   „ 

>> 

Marcelli  pape 

[et  agnetis  .  u]2 

xvi     „ 

» 

antoni .  monachi 

iv 

W 

>> 

Gylde  .c3 

XV       „ 

jf 

Prisce  .  u  . 

iii 

>> 

5> 

Balthildis  .  regine 

xiv    „ 

» 

Marie  et  marthe 

1  Unique  (this  word  as  used  in  these  notes  =an  entry  not  occurring  in  any  other  of  our 
English  calendars  before  the  Conquest  so  far  as  known  to  me).  Mr.  W.  G.  Searle's  Otiomasticon 
mentions  nineteen  persons  of  this  name.  Probably  ^Ethelmod,  bishop  of  Sherborne  c.  772-781 
{of.  cit.  p.  43;  the  same  writer's  Bishops  etc.  pp.  76,  226)  is  the  saint  commemorated.  The 
longer  litany  in  the  burnt  Cotton  MS.  Galba  A  xiv  (see  p.  56  above)  has  (fol.  93b  col.  1  lines  8-io) 
after  Guthlac  these  three  invocations:  aethelmod,  eatferth,  hemma(then:  pachomi,  'frontoni'i 
columbane,  etc.).  The  >flEthelmod  of  the  litany  can  be  no  other  than  the  ^Ethelmod  at  v  id.  Jatu 
in  N  (for  Eatferth  and  Hemma  see  viii  k.  Jun.  and  vii  k.  Nov.  below). 

3  Seems  in  the  same  hand;  but  ?  added  later  (in  fainter  ink). 

3  See  iv  kal.  Oct.  below. 


FEBRUARY 

Kal. 

brigide  .  u 

ii     id. 

Castrenensis  .  m8 

iv    non. 

Purificatione  S 

marie            id. 

[  Iuliani  m]3 

iii      „ 

waerburge  .  u  . 

xvi  kal. 

Mar, 

,  ualentini  .  m 

ii       » 

[an  erasure] 

XV     „ 

?> 

Iouite  .  u  .4 

non. 

Agathe  .  u  . 

xiv   „ 

5> 

Iuliane  .  u  . 

vi      id. 

cuthmanni  .  c1 

et  uitalis  .  m 

v        „ 

Alaxandri . 

xiii  „ 

5> 

Donati  .  m 

iv      „ 

Scolastice  .  u  . 

xii    „ 

» 

Martialis 

iii      » 

Eulalie  .  u  . 

xi     „ 

?> 

pollicarpi  .  epi  et  m 

1  See  above  p.  160.  2  See  above  p.  152.  3  Added  by  a  later  hand. 

4  Unique:  the  martyr  of  Brescia  (with  Faustinus)  at  xiiii  kal.  in  M  H;     at  xv  kal.  in  th« 
Reichenau  Martyrology  Zurich  MS.  28  [Rich)  which  hat  an  'insular'  strain  (see  M.  H.  p.  21). 

165 


FEBRUARY 


x    kal.  Mar.  Calesti  pape4 
et  Gagii .  epi 
ix     ,,       „     uictoris  .  m 
viii  „       „     Cathedra  petri' 
vii    „       „     Milburge  .  u . 


vi  kal.  Mar.  Mathie  apli7 

v      „       „      Inuentio  capitis  pauli 

iv     „       „     Cipriani 

et  alaxandri . 
iii     „       „     Inuentio  caput  Ioh  bap8 


5  The  name  of  the  cemetery  in  M  H  Win  and  Bern  (not  in  Epi)  'in  cimiterio  Caleiti  depot. 
Gagi  ep.'  taken  at  the  name  of  a  person. 

*  In  red.  -     i  7  In  red;  originally  'thei',  8  In  Oengus  (p.  63,  cf.  the  Felire  p.  78). 


Kal. 

Donati  .  epi  .  m 
et  dcawig  .  epi ' 

vi 

non. 

Adriani  .  m 

V 

» 

Albini  .  epi 
et  felicis 

iv 

>> 

Uictoris .  cu/«  . 

iii 

»> 

Eusebii . 
et  saturnini  . 

viii 

id. 

Candide  .  u  . 

vii 

>> 

xl  milituw 

MARCH 

vi     non.         martiani 

et  gorgoni  .  m 
iv      id.  Gregorii  pape8 

xvii  kal.  Apr.  Eugenie  .  u  . 
xvi  „        „    patrici .  epi 
dccx  .  mar    xv     „       „     Eadweardi  .  m 
xiv    „       „     theodoli  epi 
xiii    „       „     Cuthberhti  .  epi 
xii     „       „     Benedicti  abb 
viii  „       „    Adnuntiatio  see  Mar. 
vii     „       „     eulalie  .  u  . 


1  In  Sh.;  entered  by  a  later  hand  in  the  calendar  of  the  Leofric  Miisal. 
'  In  red;  and  in  larger  characters. 


APRIL 


Kal, 

ualentini  .  c 

xviii 

kal.  Maii 

Tiburti  et  ualerij 

iii 

non. 

theodocie  .  u 

ix 

» 

»> 

Georgi  .  m 

ii 

» 

ambrosi  .  epi  et  c 

viii 

>> 

>> 

melliti  .  epi 

vi 

id. 

machari  .  psb 

et  wilfridi  epi  ' 

V 

>» 

uil  •  uirginuw  . 

vii 

>> 

>» 

letania  maiore 

iv 

>> 

theodori  .  c 

V 

» 

» 

anastasi  .  epi 

iii 

>» 

cuthlaci  .  c 
et  leonis 

iv 

» 

>> 

uitalis  .  m 

et  cristofori .  m 

et  hilari 

ii 

» 

ft 

Erconwaldi  .  epi 

id. 

Eufemie  .  u  . 

1  See  p.  159  above. 


166 


MAY 


Kal.  philippi  et  Iacobi  . 

vi       non.       Inue1 
v  „  Inuentio  see  cruris 

ii  „  Ioh  apli  ante  porta« 

lati[nam] 
non.  Ioh  epi 

viii      id.        uictoris  .  m 
vii        „  transl  and[re]ae* 

vi         „         Gordiani  et  epimathi  .  m     vii 
v  „  Mamerti  .  epi 

iv         „  Nerei  et  achilei  et  vi 

pancrati .  m  iv 


XI 

x 

viii 


xiv  kal.  Jun.  potentiane  .  u  . 

et  dunstani 
xiii    „      „    aethelbrihti  .  m 
et  nicomedis 
„    helene  .  u  . 
„    petrocii  .  c4 
„    urbani  .  m  . 

et  hasmma  .  abb  .  s 
„    agustini  .  epi 

et  bede  .  presb 
„    Germani  .  epi 
„    Felicis  .  m  et  pape  . 
„    Felicitatis  .  m  . 
„    petronelle  filia  petri 


ii  „  Machuti.cuOT.ccccim.mar3  iii       „ 

xvii  kal.  Jun.  eugenie  .  u  .  ii        „ 

1  The  entry  of  the  next  day  seems  to  have  been  begun  by  mistake  at  vi  non. 

*  See  p.  1 60  above.  This  is  a  record  of  the  receipt  at  Milan  of  the  relics  used  for  the  dedi- 
cation of  the  Basilica  at  the  Porta  Romana,  a  decisive  act  for  the  future  of  the  cult  of  relics  in  the 
West  (I  do  not  understand  Mgr,  Duchesne,  Christian  Worship  p.  402  n.  1). 

3  'Machuti'  is  intended  seemingly  for  'Maximi'  'Maximini'  (see  M  H  and  Gell). 

4  Unique. — St.  Petrock's  day  is  now  4  June;  in  England  a  date  spreading  probably  from  Win- 
chester; so  too  in  the  Breton  calendars.  In  view  of  the  general  character,  and  probable  local  origin, 
of  N,  this  calendar  (which  knows  nothing  of  the  feast  of  4  June)  may  preserve  here  the  original 
(Cornish)  day. 

5  This  'haemma  abbot'  of  the  calendar  is  doubtless  the  same  person  as  the  'hemraa'  of  the 
litany  in  Cotton  MS.  Galba  A  xiv  (see  note  on  v  id.  Jan.  above);  not  in  Searle  Onomasticon 
(pp.  290-291). 


Furtuna 
et  audomari 
Pauli 
et  fursei2 

Erasmus  is  at  iv  non.  in  Oeng  and 


JUNE 

Kal.  nicomedis  .  m  viii       id. 

iv       non.      marcelli  et  petri ' 

et  erasmi  .  m1  vii         „ 

non.  Bonefatii  .  m  et  pape . 

apollonaris  m 

1  The  'sacramentary '  feast  of  Marcellinu*  and  Peter. 
OEM;  at  iii  non.  in  G  and  B. 

2  Unique.  I  do  not  find  a  commemoration  of  St.  Fursey  at  this  day  elsewhere.  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  see  how  any  event  (e.  g.  the  translation  after  four  years)  mentioned  in  the  last  two 
chapters  of  the  early  Life  (M.  G.  SS.  rer.  Mtroving.  m  439-440)  can  have  found  (unique)  record 
in  tuch  a  calendar  as  N;  the  date  of  death  (16  Jan.)  seems  well  authenticated,  but  this  feast  of 
16  Jan.  is  found  only  in  Oeng,  OEM,  B,  and  Do.  Possibly  the  present  entry  is  after  all  only  a 
corruption  of '  Pauli,  Fortunati'  at  this  day  in  M  H  and  Gell. 

167 


xiv    leal.  Jul.  Marci  et  marcelliani .  mar 
„    Geruasi  et  protasi  .  m 

Leodfrithi  .  epi  et  c4 
„    aetheldrythe  .  u  . 
„    Nativitas  .  ioh 
„    ioh  et  pauli 

et  salui5 
„    simforose  .  cum  .  un  .  filiis 
„    uig/lw  . 

et  leonis  .  pape 
,,    petri  et  pauli6 
„    pauli 

3  In  Oeng,  OEM,  Ga,  WV. 

4  Is  this  only    St.  I.eothfridus,  Leufroy,  abbot?  (but  ice  also  Leuferth  etc.  in  Searle  Onoma- 
tticon  p.  337,  Bishops,  p.  238). 

s  See  above  pp.  36-37.  6  A  cross  at  this  feast. 


vi          id. 

Medardi  et  gildardi 

xiv 

v           „ 

primi  et  feliciani 

xiii 

et  colluwcylle  .  c3 

xi 

iii          „ 

Barnabe  .  apli 

ix 

ii           » 

basilidis  .  cirini  na- 

viii 

boris  nazari  .  m 

vi 

xviii  kal. 

Jul 

.  aniani  .  epi 

xvii     „ 

>> 

Uiti  .  modesti  .  et  cres- 

V 

cente  .  m 

iv 

xvi      „ 

>> 

Ciriaci  et  iuliani  .  cuw 

xl  .  milia 

iii 

xv       „ 

» 

botulfi  .  epi 

ii 

JULY 


Kal. 


VI 

iv 

iii 

non. 

viii 

vii 
vi 


id. 


Timothei 

v 

i 

id. 

Benedicti  abb 

et  agapiti  . 

iii 

»» 

Mildrythe  .  u  . 

oc  ioh1 

et  margarete  .  [u] 

processi  et  martiniani 

id. 

Cirici  .  pueri  et  iulite 

trawl  sci  martini 

matnV  eius 

oc  aplor 

xvi 

leal. 

Aug. 

,  Kenelmi  .  m 

et  sexburge  .  u . 

viii 

» 

» 

Iacobi  .  apli 

marine  .  u  . 

vi 

» 

» 

un  .  do[r]mientiuw 

et  sci  ercenwaldi 2 

V 

» 

>i 

Saturnini  .  epi  et  m 

Grimbaldi  .  c 

iv 

>> 

>> 

Felicis  et  simplici  . 

et  quintini 

iii 

»> 

>» 

Abdon  et  senen  .  m 

anatholie  .  u  . 

ii 

» 

>> 

[Sci  germani  epi  . 

un  hatrum  et  felici- 

et  Sci  neoti  prbri  .]3 

tatis  .  m 

1  The  octave  of  St.  John  Bapt.  in  this  calendar  seems  noteworthy;   in  WV  only  (Wo  in  later 
hand).     The  Oct.  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul  just  below  dates  at  least  from  the  seventh  century. 
*  Unique  (B  at  this  day  has  'Ethelburga'). 
3  In  another  hand  seemingly  not  earlier  than  late  cent.  xi.      For  Neot  see  at  xiii  kal.  Nov. 


Kal. 

iv       non. 
iii         „ 
non. 


AUGUST 

Machabeor  .  un  viii 

stephani  epi  et  m  iv 

Inuentio  corpus  stephani  ii 

Oswaldi  regis  et  m  id. 


168 


id. 


Sixti  .  epi  et  m 
Sci  Laurenti  .  m 
Eupli  .  m 
ypoliti  .  m 


AUGUST 

xviii  kal.  Sept.  Assumtione  see  marie1        xii    kal.  Sept.   iulii  et  iuliani  . 
xiv       „     „      magni  .  m2  simforiani2 

et  helene  .  u3  viii       „     „      bartholomei  .  apli1 

xiii       „     „      ualentini  iv         „     „      Decolatio  ioh  bap1 

et  maximiani 

1  A  cross  follows  this  entry.  *  The  entries  of  xiv-xii  kal.  in  a  different  hand. 

3  In  R  is  'scae  elenae  reg.'.  This  is  now  the  day  of  St.  Helena  empress;  in  codd  Whs  and 
Bern  of  M  H  (not  in  Ept)  is  'Apparition  of  the  Holy  Cross  at  Jerusalem'  at  this  day;  there  ii 
(as  appears  from  Dom  Quentin's  book)  no  'Helena'  in  the  historical  martyrologies  up  to  the 
time  of  Ado  inclusive,  or  in  the  documents  reviewed  by  him  generally. 

SEPTEMBER 
Kal.  prisce  .  u  .  et  m 

iv       non.        iustini  .  epi 

[  ?  ivor  iii]  et  birini1 
iii         „  bonefacii  .  epi  et  m 

et  marcelli  . 
non.  berhtini  abb 

vi         id.  Natiuitas  see  marie 

v  „  Gorgoni  .  m 

iii         „  proti  et  iacincti  .  m 

xviii  kal.  Oct.  Exultatio  see  crucis  . 
xvii     „      „    nicomedis  .  m 

et  iuliani  . 
xvi      „      „    Eufemie  .  u  .  et  m 

et  lucie  .  u  . 
xv        „      ,,    landberhti  e[pi] 

1  See  p.  159  above  as  to  the  feast  of  Birinus  in  September  which  in  all  other  calendars  is  at 
4  Sept.  This  entry  'et  birini'  is  in  the  line  of  2  Sept.  but  is  so  written  that  it  may  be  a  conti- 
nuation of  the  entry  of  3  Sept.  Wo  is  the  only  other  calendar  that  has  Birinus  alone;  'Transl. 
Birini  et  Cuthberti'  in  Ju,  R,  Sh,  WV,  WT;  'et  Cuthberti  translatio'  in  later  hand  in  Wo. 

2  So  MS.;  intended  for  6666  (see  p.  148  n.  2  N°  13). 

3  St.  Ceolfrid  is  at  this  day  in  OEM,  G,  B,  Sh,  and  V. 

4  The  feast  of  St.  Gildas  is  (universally)  29  Jan.,  at  which  day  also  it  is  found  in  this 
calendar.  The  present  feast  is  unique.  A  manuscript  missal  of  Vannei  of  the  fifteenth  century 
has  a  feast  of  St.  Gildas  at  v  id.  Maii  (see  abbe  F.  Duine's  Brewaires  et  Missels  des  iglises  et 
abbayes  Bretonnes,  Rennes,  Eug.  Prost,  1905,  p.  141).  But  in  view  of  the  ease  with  which,  I  think, 
we  too  commonly  accord  credit  for  antiquity  to  Breton  or  Welsh  or  Irish,  in  a  word  Celtic, 
traditions'  as  compared  with  what  is  merely  English,  it  may  be  well  to  observe  that  the  oldest 
extant  Breton  calendar — one  of  Landevenec  of  the  eleventh  (so  M.  Delisle)  or  at  the  earliest  of  the 
late  tenth  century  (Duine  pp.  148-15  1) — seems  to  give  clear  evidence  (apart  from  St.  Cuthbert 
at  20  March,  and  St.  Augustine  at  26  May)  that  it  goes  back  on  an  English  original.  The  feast  of 
St.  Gildas  of  28  September  is  therefore  not  to  be  summarily  dismissed  as  only  a  blunder  (cf.  note  on 

k  kal.  Jun.  above). 

IO9 


xiv 

kal. 

Oct 

,  Meliti  .  epi 

xiii 

>» 

>> 

theodori  .  epi 

xii 

>> 

>> 

Uig/lw 

xi 

» 

V 

Mathei  apl  et  eugl 

x 

»> 

»> 

maurici  .  cu«  .  ui  . 
dclxui  .  mar3 

ix 

»> 

>> 

tecle  .  u  .  et  m  . 

viii 

» 

»> 

Conceptio  .  ioh 

vii 

» 

>> 

sci  firmini  .  m 
et  sceollfridi  ab3 

vi 

>> 

V 

Cipriani  et  iustine  .  u  . 

V 

>> 

» 

Cosme  et  damiani  .  mar 

iv 

>> 

>> 

Gylde  .  con  . 4 

iii 

>> 

»> 

Dedicatio  ecle  michaelis 

ii 

>> 

JJ 

Germani  .  epi  et  c 

OCTOBER 

xvi 

kal. 

Nov 

.  aetheldrythe  .  u  . 

XV 

>> 

» 

luce  eugl 

xiii 

a 

»> 

Neoti  .  psbi4 

xii 

>> 

» 

hilarionis  .  c 

relli       xi 

>> 

>> 

flauiani  . 
et  filippi 

X 

>> 

>> 

thodorici  .  mar 

ix 

>> 

>> 

felicis  et  audacti  .  mar 

viii 

>> 

?> 

crispini  et  crispiniani  .  m 

vii 

>> 

>> 

sci  eadfridi  .  conf6 

vi 

» 

»> 

uigilia 

V 

>> 

>> 

simonis  et  iude6 

iv 

>> 

j> 

sci  iacincti  .  mar 

iii 

» 

>» 

Maximiani  . 

ii 

>> 

>> 

quintini  .  mar  . 
trig/ltd 

Kal.  remegi  et  uedasti  . 

vi        non.        leodgari  epi 

v  „  Marci  et  marcelliani 

iii  „  cristine .  u  . 

non.  marci  .  pape  et  marcelli 

viii       id.  richari  .  c  ' 

et  faustini 

et  iwi . c  * 
vii         „  Dionisi  .  rustici  et  e 

leutheri  .  m 
vi  „  paulini  .  epi  et  c 

v  „  aethelburge  .  u3 

et  firmini  .  epi 
iii  „  anastati  .  epi 

ii  „  Calesti  .  epi  et  m 

et  furtunati  .  epi 
xvii  kal.  Nov.  luciani  . 

et  maximiani  . 

1  A  Ponthieu  saint;  in  D  and  S  only  (see  p.  159  n.  1  as  to  Terouanne  saints). 

»  In  the  two  Winchester  calendars,  WT  and  WV,  only.  3  In  OEM,  G,  S,  Sh. 

4  Also  in  Sh;  the  late  mediaeval  feast  of  St.  Neot  is  31  July;  see  what  is  said  as  to  St.  Petrock 
and  St.  Gildas  in  notes  to  x  kal.  Jun.  and  iv  kal.  Oct.  above. 

6  Perhaps  bishop  Eadfrith  of  Lindisfarne  (698-721).  An  'eatferth'  is  invoked  in  the  longer 
litany  of  Galba  A  xn  (see  note  to  v  id.  Jun.  above);  other  persons  of  this  name  in  Searle  Ono- 
masticon  p.  179.  6  A  cross  follows  the  names. 


NOVEMBER 

bricii  epi 
xvii  kal.  Dec.  Machuti  .  epi  et  c 

„     romani  et  barali  .  pu- 

eri  .  m 3 
„     Colu/Tzbani  .  c 
„     Cecilie  .  u  . 
„     Clementis  .  pape  et  m 
„     Grisogori  .  m 
„     lini  pape 
„     saturnini  .  m 

uig[ilia] 
„     Passio  andree  apli 

1  Rumwald  is  at  iv  non.  in  B;  in  S  at  iii  non.  as  N. 

1  In  B;  in  S  'Deposs  dfii  iustini  archiepi'  (i.  e.  Justus  of  Canterbury). 

1  So  too  B;  G  had  Msici'  (the  other  companion  in  martyrdom  of  Romanus). 

170  . 


Kal. 

Omniu/w  scor 

id. 

iv 

non. 

eustachi  .  m 

xvii 

iii 

>> 

rumwaldi ' 

et  germani  .  ep 

xiv 

ii 
non. 

>> 

p^rpetue  .  u  . 
felicis  et  eusebi 

xiii 

X 

viii 

id. 

winnoci  .  epi 

ix 

vi 

yy 

.  1111  .  coronator . 

viii 

v 

» 

theodori  .  m 

vi 

iv 

>> 

iusti  .  epi  . ! 

iii 

iii 

»» 

martini  epi 

et  menne  .  m 

ii 

DECEMBER 

Kal. 

candide  .  u  . 

xix 

kal. 

Jan 

.  uictoris  et  uictoi 

iii 

non. 

birini  epi 

xvii: 

'  „ 

■>■> 

Maximiani  epi 

ii 

» 

trl  benedicti  abb 

xvi 

» 

»> 

Ignati  epi  et  m 

viii 

id. 

Nicolai  epi  et  c  ! 

xiii 

» 

■>■> 

Iuliani  et  bassi- 

vii 

>> 

Oc  andree 

lisce  .  u 

iv 

» 

Eulalie  .  u  . 

xii 

» 

» 

Thomas 

iii 

»> 

Damasci  .  pape2 

viii 

>> 

» 

Natiuitas  .  Dni3 

ii 

>> 

Donati  epi  et  c 

vii 

» 

>> 

Stephani  .  m3 

id. 

lucie  .  u 

vi 

» 

» 

Iohis  eugl3 

et  iudoci 

V 

>> 

>> 

Innocentiu/w 

ii 

» 

>> 

siluest/7  pape  4 

1  This  seems  the  earliest  authentication  in  an  English  calendar  of  the  feast  of  St.  Nicholas. 
*  'c'  is  erased.  3  ^  cr03S  f0now,  tnis  entry. 

4  In  another  hand  seemingly  not  earlier  than  late  cent,  xi :  'et  sci  eguini  epi'. 


C.     THE  CALENDAR  OF  SAINT  AUGUSTINE'S 

A  comparison  of  the  two  leaves  of  calendar  in  the  Eton  MS.  78  (a  copy  of  which, 
discriminating  its  various  handwritings,  has  been  kindly  sent  to  me  by  Dr.  M.  R. 
James)  with  the  foregoing  Table  of  Canterbury  cathedral  calendars  and  with  three 
calendars  of  St.  Augustine's  now  in  my  hands  solves  at  once  the  difficulties  this  frag- 
ment presents.  It  is  part  (February  and  March,  November  and  December)  of  a 
calendar  of  St.  Augustine's  of  (seemingly  the  first  half  of)  the  thirteenth  century. 
At  a  later  period  this  St.  Augustine's  calendar  passed  to  the  cathedral;  and  at  some 
time  early  in  the  fifteenth  century  was  more  or  less  adapted  to  the  use  of  this  latter 
church.  This  adaptation  was  effected  by  the  insertion  of  the  two  recently  decreed 
'synodal'  feasts,  St.  David  and  St.  Chad,  1  and  2  March;  by  the  substitution  at  16 
Nov.  of  the  Ordination  of  St.  Elphege  for  the  Ordination  of  St.  Augustine  (see  p.  1 2  2 
n.  i);  and  by  the  addition  of  gradings  to  (most  of)  such  feasts  of  St.  Augustine's 
as  were  also  kept  at  the  cathedral.  Apart  from  palaeographical  considerations  the 
date  of  this  entry  of  gradings  may  be  inferred  from  that  of  6  Nov.,  St.  Leonard, 
which  is  given  as  'quasi  in  albis  xii  lc'.  From  the  Table  printed  above  it  appears 
that  this  is  a  designation  peculiar  to  No.  1 3,  a  manuscript  of  the  early  part  of  the 
fifteenth  century.  The  gradings  of  the  Eton  MS.  will  be  given  in  full  below 
among  the  Corrigenda.1 

It  is  neither  to  be  expected  nor  desired  that  the  subject  of  the  St.  Augustine's 
calendar  should  be  discussed  here;  but  notice  must  be  taken  of  some  items  that 
concern  matters  already  touched  on  in  this  extended  tract. 

1  Three  items  which  I  do  not  understand  are  mentioned  here  for  record:  9  Mar.  'Scorum  xl 
milium'  {so);  2  Dec.  'Sci  Birini  epi.';  7  Dec.  'Ignacii  epi';  to  each  of  these  is  added  the  grading  'iii 
lc';  but  these  three  items  do  not  appear  in  the  Canterbury  Cathedral  calendars.  The  '40  mil.' 
occurs  in  MS.  'AC  and  Ignatius  in  MS.  'AA'  (for  these  signs  see  the  next  footnote). 

I7I 


(i)  One  or  other  of  the  three  St.  Augustine's  calendars  mentioned  above  as 
in  hand1  shews  items  of  the  calendar  in  the  Bosworth  Psalter  (B)  that  have  fallen 
out  of  the  later  calendars  of  Canterbury  cathedral.     These  are: 


17  ]an.  Antonii  mon. 

1  2  Feb.  Eulalie  v. 

23    „  Milburge 

9  Mar.  Passio  scor.  xl  millium  (so). 

6  July  Sexburge  v. 


n  AA,  AC. 

n  AC;   not  in  AA. 

n  AC;  not  in  AA,  AB. 

n  AC;  not  in  A  A,  AB. 

n  AA,  AC;  not  in  AB. 


Of  these  five  items  the  first,  second  and  fourth  occur  also  in  the  Glastonbury 
calendar  of  the  tenth  century  (G). 

But  four  other  items,  unfamiliar  in  the  later  mediasval  calendars  generally, 
also  suggest  enquiry;  viz. 

6  Mar.  * sci  victoris'  in  AA,  AC. 

7  Apr.   '  sci  timothei'  in  AC  only. 
9      „     'see  Marie  egyptiace'              in  AC  only. 

1 1  Oct.  'see  ethelburge  v.  iii  lc'  in  AA,  AC,  AB. 

Whence  come  these  four?  They  are  not  in  B.  But  they  all  occur  in  the  ca- 
lendar G;  and  I  know  of  no  third  document  in  which  they  occur  together.* 

(2)  It  was  said  above  p.  35  n.  1  that,  in  addition  to  the  names  of  the  six 
archbishops  whose  relics  were  translated  in  1091,  there  are  found  in  the  St.  Augus- 
tine's calendar  of  c.  1252-1273  (AC)  two  others,  Tathwin  and  Jambert.  Both 
names  are  absent  from  the  Ashmole  MS.  (AA)  which  may  date  about  half  a 
century  earlier.  The  two  brief  lists  just  given  shew  five  other  items  found  in 
AC  but  not  in  AA.     This  is  the  case  also  with  three  more: 

17  Oct.    Etheldredi  et  Etheldruthi      in  AC,  AB. 

12  Nov.  sci  Liwini  epi  et  m.  in  AC  ('com'),  AB  ('iii  lc'). 
21     „      Oblacio  See  Marie  v.  11          in  AC  only. 

All  this  seems  to  indicate  that  at  some  time  in  the  first  half  of  the  thirteenth 

1  These  are:  Ashmole  MS.  1525,  early  cent,  xiii,  here  called  AA;  that  in  the  Canterbury 
cathedral  MS.  E  19  (c.  1252-1273),  here  called  AC;  and  a  calendar  of  early  cent,  xiv  in  a  Psalter 
of  St.  Augustine's  now  in  the  collection  of  Mr.  C.  W.  Dyson  Perrins,  here  called  AB  (the  monthi 
of  January  and  February  are  wanting).  The  first  and  third  were  communicated  to  me  by  Mr 
S.  C.  Cockerell.  The  two  calendars  at  the  British  Museum  mentioned  above  (p.  125)  as  containing 
St.  Augustine's  material  are  in  Cotton  MSS.  Julius  D  vn  and  Vespasian  A  11  (see  Fr.  R.  Stanton's 
Menology  p.  677). 

2  As  regards  the  pre-Conquest  calendars:  Victor  (6  Mar.)  is  found  in  G  alone;  Timothy  (7 
Apr.)  is  in  G,  Sh,  Wo;  for  St.  Mary  of  Egypt  see  above  p.  148  n.  2  N°  5 ;  Ethelburga  (1 1  Oct.) 
is  in  OEM,  G,  S,  Sh  and  N.  Doubtless  this  last  named  feast  is  found  in  several  late  mediaeval 
calendars;  but  a  consideration  of  the  place  of  origin  of  those  referred  to  in  Father  Richard  Stan- 
ton's Menology  p.  486,  will,  I  think,  shew  that  St.  Ethelburga  is  not  on  that  account  to  be  eliminated 
from  the  list  in  the  text. 

172 


century  the  calendar  of  St.  Augustine's  was  submitted  to  some  kind  of  recon- 
sideration or  revision. 

(3)  A  notable  feature  of  the  post-Conquest  calendars  of  both  Canterbury 
cathedral  and  St.  Augustine's  in  the  form  of  their  final  settlement  is  the  almost 
entire  absence  of  feasts  of  Norman  saints.  The  calendar,  for  instance,  of  Exeter 
of  the  later  years  of  the  twelfth  century  (Hampson  Med.  aevi  Kalendar.  I  449- 
460)  shews  about  a  dozen.  Besides  St.  Austroberta  and  St.  Audoen  whose  cult 
in  the  particular  case  was  due  to  relics  and  dated  from  before  the  Conquest,  the 
calendar  of  Canterbury  cathedral  shews  the  introduction  of  but  one  Norman  saint, 
St.  Nicasius  of  Rouen  (1 1  Oct.).  The  St.  Augustine's  calendar  has  at  21  June 
St.  Leutfridus  and  at  24  Aug.  St.  Audoen;  but  both  of  these  were  well-established 
and  wide-spread  feasts  in  England  before  1066.  There  remains  27  Feb.  St.  Hono- 
rina  as  the  solitary  record  in  the  St.  Augustine's  calendar  of  Norman  influence 
like  St.  Nicasius  at  the  cathedral.1 

(4)  One  further  point  concerning  the  calendar  of  St.  Augustine's  may  be 
usefully  noticed  here.  The  famous  translation  of  the  relics  of  St.  Thomas  in  1 220 
by  archbishop  Stephen  Langton,  one  of  the  most  renowned  pageants  of  the 
thirteenth  century,  almost  immediately  found  recognition  in  other  and  even  some- 
what distant  Churches.  But  the  ancient  and  dignified  community  only  a  few 
furlongs  away  were  by  no  means  so  ready  or  so  complaisant.  The  calendar  of  the 
Ashmole  MS.  may  very  well  date  from  a  time  before  the  solemnity;  but  this 
Translation  was  still  not  recognized  at  St.  Augustine's  when  the  calendar  in  the 
Canterbury  MS.  E  19  was  written  (between  1252  and  1273);  when  entered 
later  by  another  hand  it  does  not  receive  a  grading;  and  in  the  fourteenth  century 
(as  shewn  by  AB)  has  the  quite  inferior  one  of  twelve  lessons.  It  has  not 
infrequently  happened  that  great  ecclesiastical  corporations  placed  quite  near 
each  other  are  by  no  means  disposed  to  adopt  soon  or  easily  new  feasts  of  their 
immediate  neighbours, — a  point  it  is  sometimes  well  to  remember  when  assigning 
approximate  dates  to  calendars  on  internal  evidence. 

(5)  In  the  calendar  of  the  Canterbury  MS.  E  19,  besides  the  obits  of  abbats 
and  a  few  friends  or  domestic  worthies,  are  some  fifteen  of  very  great  personages. 
Seven  of  these  are  of  Anglo-Saxon  times:  Harold  and  Stigand;  of  an  earlier  day, 
Canute,  queen  Emma  and  archbishop  Eadsige. 

Two  remain.  The  first,  at  xiii  kal.  Feb.,  is  the  obit,  as  '  Eadbaldus  rex  Anglo- 
rum  ',2  of  Eadbald,  Ethelbert's  successor  as  king  of  Kent  (616-640),  whose  death- 
date  inscribed  in  some  Paschal  Table  was  sixty  or  seventy  years  later  carried  over 
to  the  continent  by  some  English  missioner  to  survive  for  us  as  a  historical  record 

1  Though  the  relics  of  St.  Honorina  were  actually  preserved  at  Conflans  (Oise)  her  tomb  at 
Graville  in  the  pays  de  Caux  and  diocese  of  Rouen  was  the  centre  of  her  cult  and  object  of  pilgri- 
mage (Cochet,  Le  tombeau  dt  Sainte  Honorine  a  Graville  pres  le  Havre,  Rouen,  E.  Cagniard,  1867). 
Dom  Morinhas  in  the  Semaine  religieuse  of  Bayeux  restored  St.  Honorina  to  her  primitive  origin 
in  the  diocese  of  Bayeux  (Potthast,  Bibl.  hist.  Ed.  2.  p.  1377);  but  this  restitution  has  no  bearing 
on  what  is  said  here,  either  in  text  or  note. 

1  Repeated  at  xi  kal.  as  'Eadbaldus  rex'  only, 

*73 


only  in  the  meagre  earliest  annals  of  distant  Salzburg.  But  this  death-date 
of  Eadbald  survived,  too,  some  six  or  seven  hundred  years  after  as  an  obit  in  his 
father's  own  foundation  of  St.  Augustine's. 

The  second,  at  viii  kal.  Sept.,  '  Eadgiua  regina ',  is  that  of  the  '  noble  queen 
Edyva'  whose  name  at  all  events  was  kept  fresh  in  memory  at  Christ  Church  down 
to  the  Suppression  (p.  125  n.  1).  This  can  be  no  other  than  that  '  Eadgifu 
evax ',  as  she  loved  to  call  herself,  widow  of  king  Edward  the  Elder,  Alfred's  son, 
mother,  and  grandmother,  of  two  kings,  Edmund  and  Edred,  Edwy  and  Edgar. 
In  view  of  the  recorded  incidents  in  the  life  of  this  great  lady,  who  played  such 
a  part  in  the  English  history  of  the  tenth  century,  and  lived  to  see  Edgar's  accession, 
we  cannot  be  far  wrong  in  tracing  back  the  inscription  of  her  name  in  the  obit- 
books  of  Canterbury  cathedral  and  St.  Augustine's  directly  to  St.  Dunstan  himself. 


J74 


CORRIGENDA 

p.  6  1.  1 5.  It  would  be  perhaps  now  not  proper  to  pass  over  without  notice  a  name 
occurring  in  this  Canon  of  the  Mass  added  by  a  later  hand.  The  list  of 
Saints  in  the 'Nobis  quoque  peccatoribus' after  'Anastasia'  has '  Euphemia'. 
This  is  rare.  The  same  insertion  is,  however,  found  in  the  Canon  of  a 
Roman  Ordo  of  about  the  year  1032  written  for  the  church  of  Seez 
in  Normandy  seen  by  Menard  (Preface  to  his  Gregorian  Sacramentary, 
Paris,  1642  pp.  9-10,  and  Notes  p.  21 ;  in  Migne  P.  L.  78,  20-21,  281 
n.  78).  This  MS.  also  contained  the  Annals  now  commonly  known  from 
the  name  of  its  possessor  as  'Annales  Tiliani',  and  another  set  of  Annals 
to  a.  d.  1032,  both  first  printed  by  Duchesne  (Scr.  rer.  Franc.  II  11, 
III  356).  It  seems  to  be  now  lost.  But  the  presence  of  this  singular 
feature  of  the  Seez  MS.  in  the  copy  of  the  Canon  added  to  the  Bosworth 
Psalter  at  Canterbury  towards  the  close  (as  it  would  seem)  of  the  eleventh 
century  deserves  attention  and  might  be  a  starting  point  for  further  enquiry. 

p.  25  I  4.  A  footnote  should  be  added  as  follows:  A  difference  between  B  and  G  that 
does  not  afreet  the  figures  deserves  notice.  G  has  'Sci  Thomae  apost. '  as 
well  as  Erasmus  at  3  June;  the  'Translatio  thomae  apli'  at  3  July  in  B  is 
not  in  G.  B  here  follows  the  tradition  of  M  H,  also  found  in  other 
English  documents;  but  G,  by  exception,  has  adopted  a  tradition  found  in 
Rich  and  evidently  interpolated  into  the  M  H  text  of  Bern  (see  ed.  of  de 
Rossi  and  Duchesne  p.  74). 

p.  25  1.  9  read  Baralus. 

p.  25  1.  19.  The  origin  of  the  cult  of  St.  Fursey  at  Canterbury  cathedral  is  here 
referred  to  the  continent  not  to  Ireland  as  it  was  due  to  relics  (p.  57  seqq.). 

p.  27  n.  1  For  knowledge  of  the  calendar  in  the  Egerton  MS.  I  have  to  thank 
Mr.  J.  P.  Gilson  who  put  it  into  my  hands.  When  writing  this  first  part 
of  the  tract  I  had  forgotten  the  calendar  in  the  Lambeth  MS.  443  (No.  12 
of  the  Table)  which  I  had  copied  out  some  three  and  twenty  years  before. 

p.  30  1.  4  read  and  with  a  few. 

p.  31  1.  10  read  took  place  during  Anselm's  visit  to  Lanfranc  at  Canterbury  in  the 
spring,  and 

p  33  n.  I  last  linear  age  read  date 

•  p.  45  (9)  in  footnote,  1.  12  read  quod  cum  quidam 

p.  47  1.  8  read  Eadmer 

p.  49  1.  22  read  the  feast  of  8  December 

p.  50  1.  4  read  Constantinopolitan 

p.  5  1  n.  2  1.  3  read  our 

p.  5  3  1.  1 5  for  Metrical  read  Poetical 

p.  53  n.  1  last  line:  Fasti 

l7S 


p.  54  11.  3-4.  The  tract  on  the  Resting  Places  of  English  Saints  gives  an  early  and 
authentic  notice  of  these  relics  thus:  'sancte  Brangwalatoris  heafod,  bis- 
copes,  and  sancte  Samsoncs  carm,  biscopes,  and  his  cricc  '(F.  Liebermann, 
Die  Heiligen  England*  p.  19). 

p.  54  n.   1  1.  3  read  distinguished. 

p.  55  1.  2  from  bottom  of  text  cancel  quotation  mark  at  the  beginning. 

p.  61  n.  1  11.  14-15  'There  is  no  mention  by  the  original  hand  of  St.  Aldhelm'. 
This  is  too  categorical;  I  notice  some  differences  of  script  in  the  entry  of 
St.  Aldhelm  (25  May)  as  well  as  in  about  a  half  a  dozen  names  in  Decem- 
ber, and  on  this  account  make  my  reserves.  But  others  on  inspecting  the 
MS.  might  have  no  such  scruples  and  would  consider  these  entries  part  of 
the  calendar  as  originally  written. 

p.  64  1.  11  read  palasographical. 

p.  64  11.  16,  17  cancel  the  two  commas. 

p.  65  1  12  'the  only  entry  in  the  calendar'. — This  is  incorrect;  the  word  'Natal' 
also  occurs  in  B  at  I  May  (see  the  Table).  Note  1  at  p.  82  is  of  course 
to  be  read  in  connection  with  what  is  said  at  p.  65  as  to  this  entry  of  St. 
Edward  k.  and  m.     That  it  is  by  a  later  hand  seems  not  open  to  doubt. 

p.  72  11.  7-8  read  almost  invariably  used  in  No.  7  (except  in  June,  July  and 
August)  for  feasts 

p.  73  n.  1  1.  14.  As  Dom  Quentin  (Les  Martyrologes  historiques  p.  129)  would 
seem  to  imply  that  the  feast  of  St.  Bartholomew  may  have  been  assigned 
in  England  to  both  the  24th  and  25th  Aug.  in  the  first  half  of  the  eighth 
century,  it  may  be  as  well  to  state  the  facts  of  the  case.  From  the  details 
given  p.  73  n.  1  above  it  appears  that  with  two  exceptions  the  24th  is 
not  found  in  our  English  calendars  as  the  feast  of  St.  Bartholomew  until 
the  second  half  of  the  eleventh  century.  These  two  exceptions  are:  the 
metrical  calendar  in  Galba  A  xvin  and  J.  In  sending  me  a  copy  of  J,  Abbot 
Gasquet  pointed  out  that  its  metrical  entries  are  also  found  in  the  Galba 
calendar;  moreover,  both  have  the  obits  of  Alfred  and  Ealhswith;  both 
date  from  the  early  part  of  the  tenth  century;  and  both  do  not  influence 
later  English  tradition. 

As  regards  English  documents  of  a  date  earlier  than  c.  900  Will,  Y, 
Oeng,  OEM,  D  covering  the  seventh  to  the  tenth  century  have  St. 
Bartholomew  at  the  25th.  As  regards  the  Hieronymian  Martyrology:  his 
name  is  at  the  25th  in  Ept;  it  is  not  mentioned  in  Wiss\  but  is  in  Bern 
at  the  24th. 

The  origin  of  the  24th  is  to  be  sought  in  France.  St.  Bartholomew 
was  one  of  the  saints  whose  feast  the  Franco-Gallic  compiler  of  the  Qelas. 
saec.  z'iii  was  the  first  to  furnish  with  a  proper  mass  (see  p.  154  above), 
and  he  assigned  it  to  the  24th  Aug.;  the  same  date  is  found  also  in  the 
Martyrologium  Gellonense,  and  in  the  calendar  written  for  Charlemagne 
between  781  and  783  (see  F.  Piper,  Kar/s  d.  Gr.  Kalendarium,  pp.  14, 
27).  This  seems  to  show  that  24th  Aug.  had  in  France  been  commonly 
substituted  for  the  25th  as  early  as  the  first  half  of  the  eighth  century. 
It  would  be  interesting  to  know  which,  if  any,  of  the  Gallic  calendars  of 

I76 


the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries  still  shew  St.  Bartholomew  at  the  25th. 
The  Calendarium  Floriacense  certainly  does  so;  but  this  is  doubtless  due 
to  the  fact  that  it  goes  back  on  an  English  original  (see  p.  14  n.  1  above). 
It  would  appear  then  that  if  St.  Bartholomew  is  found  in  MSS.  of '  Bede's 
Martyrology  '  at  the  24th  Aug.,  this  is  due  either  to  a  change  of  day  made 
to  suit  continental  usage,  or  to  the  fact  that  the  name  was  not  inserted  by 
Bede  in  his  work  but  was  added  later  in  France. 
j6  col.  3  at  10th:  read  Pauli 

82  footnote  1  for  27th  read  17th 

83  seqq.  and  113  seqq.  The  following  are  the  gradings  in  the  Eton  MS.  78 

(see  p.  1 7 1  above)  added  in  the  fifteenth  century  after  the  calendar  came 
to  the  cathedral: 


7  Mar.  (Perp.  et  Felicit.)  iii  lc 
9      „     ('scorum  xl  milium')  iii  lc 

I  2      „      (Greg,  pp.)  in  c 

18  „     (Edw.  k.  and  m.)  Ill 

20  „     (Cuthb.)  ?  xii  lc 

21  „      (Bened.)  II 
25      „     (Annunc.)  II 

4  Apr.   (Ambros.)  in  c 

19  „     (Elphege)  III 
•23      „      (George)  in  c 

25      „     (Mark)  in  c 
28      „     (Vitalis)  iii  lc 
6  Nov.  (Leonard)  quasi  in  a.  xii  lc 

I I  „     (Martin)  in  c. 
13      „      (Brice)  xii  lc 

16      „      (Ordin.  Elph.)  in  a. 
1 8      „     (Oct.  Mart.)  xii  lc 


20  Nov.  (Edm.  k.)  x[ii  lc] 

30  „  (Andr.)  II 

2  Dec.  ('  Sci  Birini  epi  ')  iii  lc 

6  „  (Nichol.)  in  a. 

7  „  (Oct.  Andr.)  xii  lc 

8  „  (Cone.  Mar.)  in  c. 
1 1  „  (Damas.)  iii  lc 

1 3  „  (Lucy)  xii  lc 

16  „  (Barb.)  iii  lc 

17  „  ('  Ignacii  epi')  iii  lc 

2 1  „*  (Thomas  ap.)  in  c. 

25  „  (Christmas)  III 

26  „  (Steph.)  in  c. 

27  „  (John  ev.)  II 

28  „  (Innoc.)  in  c. 

29  ,,  (Thomas  abp.)  Ill 

31  „  (Silvester)  xii  lc 


p.  87  at  23rd:  cancel '  quasi  in  a.  13'. 

p.  95  1.  1  o  for  Tanslacio  read  Translacio 

p.  2Z3  n.  1  for  Bryan  read  Plucknett 

p.  1 1 8  read  1 1 8  for  8  1 1  at  foot  of  page 

pp.  121-122.  Perhaps  I  ought  to  have  mentioned  the  alternatives.  Besides  three 
other  Ronans,  Oengus  has  at  1 8  Nov. '  royal  Ronan  '  (different  from  'bishop 
Ronan  the  royal'  of  9  Feb.;  see  the  genealogies  pp.  73,  243).  In  the 
Drummond  calendar  at  1 8  Nov.  along  with  Romanus  of  Antioch  is '  natale 
confessoris  Ronain  '  (p.  37).  There  is  cult  of  a  St.  Ronan  in  Brittany 
particularly  in  the  diocese  of  Saint-Pol-de-Leon  (see  Duine,  oj>.  cit.  pp. 
155-156,  167;  cf.  Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Councils  II  87).  St.  Rumon  of  the 
Lizard  and  Tavistock  is  also  sometimes  called  Ronan.  Having  explained 
in  the  text  what  seems  to  me  the  more  likely  origin  of  the  Canterbury 
feast,  I  must  leave  it  to  others  to  evidence  the  introduction  of  the  cult  of 


177 


an  Irish,  Breton,  or  Cornish  Ronan  at  Canterbury  as  has  been  done  above 
for  Brendan  at  Evesham, 
p.  l  2  5  1.  4  read  calendar. 


•Residue  of  G'  (p.  148  n.  2): 
N°  2  add  D 

„   5  after  D  add  (at  iv  non.  Apr.). 
„    S  read  thus:  At  iv  non.  in  M  H  Eft  'herasmi';   Win  and  Bern  'Nerasmi'; — in  Will 

('erasmi  mar.'),  Oeng,  OEM. — In  B  at  iii  non.  at  in  G. 
„    9  add  in  Wo  'see  Marie  virg.' 
„ij  add  Sh  6006,  Will  6660 
•Residue  of  S'  (p.  150  n.  1) — 
N°  11  add  Ju,  N. 
„   26  add  Will  Y. 
•Residue  of  D'  (p.  151  n.  2): — 
N°  2  for  xxii  read  xxv. 
N°    4  add  (in  M  H  at  v  id.) 

„      7  add  But  see  Quentin,  Martyrol.  hiit.  p,  696  (Venantius). 
„      8*/,/(?B). 

„    10  read  thus:  in  OEM,  Ju,  R  (?  erased  in  Wo;  in  Oeng  at  xv  kal.) 
p.  150  11.  8-9:  The  two  items  of  7  May  and  24  Oct.  are  interesting;  but  no  notice  hat  been  taken 

of  them  because  they  raite  new  and  distinct  questions. 
p.  152  1.  24  add:   It  is  possible  that  the  'ice  maxime'  of  N°  19  in  the  Residue  of  S  (p.  150  n.  1) 

may  be  another  late  reflection  of  the  entry  in  Eft. 
p.  154  1.  18  for  Gallican  read  Gallic 

p.  156  1.  3  from  bottom  after  Grenoble  read:  The  Breviates  of  Gell  itself,  the  so-called  'Labbea- 
num'  (MS.  Phillipps  1667  at  Berlin)  and  the  recently  edited  'Treverense',  Nos  26   and 
37  of  de  Rossi's  Prolegomena,  both  MSS.  of  the  later  years  of  the  eighth  century,  also 
bear  witness  to  the  vogue  of  Gell. 
p.  162  n.  2  1.  5  read  31  July. 

p.  158  1.  16  for  calendar  of  the  church  of  York  read  metrical  York  calendar 
p.  159  1.  25  for  metrical  calendar  of  the  church  of  York  read  metrical  York  calendar 


178 


INDEX 


The  footnotes  are  referred  to  by  brackets  (     ). 


Amiens,  feasts  and  obit  of  bishop  Richard 
of  Gerberoy  1.22- 123;  designation  of 
gradings  at  123.   See  Calendars. 

Anselm  (St.),  and  Canterbury  cathedral 
calendar  31,  33  (1);  and  cult  of  St. 
Dunstan  3 3(1), 89  footnote.  See  Feasts. 

Anselm  the  younger  (abbot  of  St.  Ed- 
mundsbury),  and  feast  of  Conception 
of  B.  V.  43  (i),5o(2). 

Benedicti,  'divisio  institutions '  10,  128 
(1);  'divisio  beati'  1 1 ;  'institutio'  128. 

Benedictine  Office :  Bosworth  Psalter 
written  for  recitation  of  1  o ;  at  Canter- 
bury cathedral  in  the  tenth  century 
129. 

Benedictional:  of  Canterbury  cathedral 
(Harl.  MS.  2892)  36-37,  48,  49  (2), 

.  57-58,  59,64(1),  70,  73(1),  list  of  its 
contents  for  Proper  of  Saints  in  notes 
on  col.  1  of  the  Table  78  seqq.;  of 
Exeter  (Addit.  MS.  28148)  48  (2). 

Bosworth  Psalter:  account  of,  by  Mr  D. 
Wells  I;  history  of  the  MS.  3-4;  its 
ornamentation  4-5,  6,  10,  1  29-1 30; 
contents  6-7;  later  additions  to  5,  6, 
14;  peculiarity  in  the  added  Canon  of 
the  Mass  175;  the  added  litany  6  (1), 
1 2 ;  the  psalms  5-10  (see  also '  Psalter') ; 
canticles  of  lauds  11-12;  hymnal  6, 
12-13;  canticles  for  the  third  nocturn 
13-14;  its  unique  character  14;  the 
psalms  partly  corrected  from  '  Roman ' 
to  'Gallican'  version  9;  interlined 
Anglo-Saxon  translation  9;  partly  glos- 
sed in  the  twelfth  or  thirteenth  cen- 


tury 9-10;  written  for  recitation  of  the 
Benedictine  Office  10-11,  14,  126; 
accents  1 1 ;  neums  11,  1 2 ;  cal  endar  1 5 
seqq.;  date  of  calendar  27,  65-66,  cf. 
p.  176;  print  of  calendar  76  seqq.  (cf. 
70);  the  copy  in  the  Bosworth  Psalter 
the  earliest  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  hym- 
nals 12,  13;  the  hymn  'Summe  con- 
fessor'not  in  other  A. S.  hymnals  12; 
no  hymns  of  English  Saints  12;  sum- 
mary of  results  obtained  by  examina- 
tion of  the  MS.  126;  the  sort  of  person 
for  whom  it  is  likely  such  a  book  might 
be  written  126;  the  date  of  the  MS. 
1 26-1  30;  the  palaeographical  question 
127;  the  question  of  the  monastic 
Office  128-129;  opinion  expressed  as 
to  probable  date  and  origin  130. 
Breton  feasts  in  England  53-57;  Breton 
cults  at  Winchester  56;  earliest  Breton 
calendar  169  (4). 

Calendars,  origins  of  the  mediaeval  church 
147   (1);    calendars    and  mass-books 
27  (1). 
Calendars: — 
Amiens,   calendar   in    Sacramentary    of 

156  (1). 
Canterbury  Cathedral. 
B.  M.   Addit.  MS.  6160  [No    10   of 
the  Table   p.  76   seqq.]. — 27   (2), 
36,  69,  121  (1). 
B.  M.  Addit.   MS.    37517   the  Bos- 
worth Psalter  [No  1  of  the  Table] 
('B').— 21-27,  34,  34(0,59,65- 
66,  68,  73  (1),  120,  121,  121  (0, 


179 


i+8(2),  150(1),  151(2), 176,178. 

B.  M.  Arundel  MS.  1  5  5  [No  3  of  the 

Table].— 23,  28-30,  32-3+,  3+  (1) 

36,   39,  4!-42.   53,   59,  68,   71* 

73  (i),88  (2),  122. 
B.  M.  Cotton  MS.  Tiberius  B  iii  [No 

7  of  the  Table]. — 27  (2),  29-30, 

3+,  36,  69,  71. 
B.  M.  Egerton  MS.   2867  [No  8  of 

the  Table].— 27   (2),  29   (1),  3+, 

36,  69,  175. 
B.  M.  Sloane  MS.   3887  [No   13  of 

the  Table].— 27   (2),  3+,  36,  37, 

69. 
Bodleian  MS.  Add.  C.  260.— 53  (1), 

59,69(1),  120,  III,  121  (1),  12+. 
Bodleian   MS.  D.  2.  [No    1 1    of  the 

Table].— 69. 
Cambridge  Trinity  College,  the  Ead- 

wine  Psalter  [No  +  of  the  Table]. 

—S3  (0,  59  (0,  68,  7°  (in  f°uL- 

note),  7+,  1 20,  1 21  (2). 
Eton  MS.  78. — 69(1),  1+5,171,177. 
Lambeth   MS.    558  [No   12   of  the 

Table]. — 69,  175. 
Niirnberg,  Canterbury  Horae  at  [No 

9  of  the  Table]. — 69. 
Paris  B.  N.  MS.  Lat.  770  [No  6  of 

the  Table].— 68. 
Paris  B.  N.  Nouv.  acq.  Lat.  1 670  [No 

5  of  the  Table]. — 68,  120. 
Canterbury  St.  Augustine's. 
B.  M.  Cotton  MS.  Julius  D  xi. — 172 

CO- 

B.  M.  Cotton  MS.  Vespasian  A  li. — 

172  (1). 
Bodleian   MS.  Ashmole    1525. — 122 

(1),  171  (1),  172. 
Canterbury  Cathedral  Library  MS.  E 

IQ-— 34,  35,  59,  I7I  (0,  K2- 
Eton  MS.  78. — See  above  under  Can- 
terbury Cathedral. 
Psalter  in  the  collection  of  Mr.  C.  W. 
Dyson  Perrins. — 172. 
Charlemagne's  calendar. — 176. 

l8o 


Evesham. 
Bodleian  MS.  Junius  99  ('Ju'). — 3  + 

(i)>+9(0»73(0>148(2).  15°(0. 
151  (2),  159  (0,  160-162,  178. 
1  Fen-Country' 
Bodleian  MS.  Douce  296   (<  Do  ')— 
3+(0>62,  73(0,1+7(1),  148(2) 
159  (0,  160,  161,  167  June  (2). 
Fleury. 
in  Martene  and  Durand  Ampl.  Coll.  vi 

650-652.-1+7(0,151  (2),  176. 

Glastonbury 
in  the  Leofric  Missal  (Oxf.    1883)  pp. 
23-3+  ('G').— 15-21,  3+  (1),  62, 
73,   111,   122  (0,  1+8-1+9,  151 
(2),  160,  163,  172. 

Luxeuil. 
Paris  B.  N.  MS.  Lat.  1+086,  printed 
in  Martene  and  Durand  Thes.  anecd. 
1591-159+.— 1+7  (1). 

Metrical  calendar  in  Athelstan's  Psalter 
Cotton  MS.  Galba  A  xviii,  printed 
with  variants  from  two  later  MSS. 
in  R.  T.  Hampson  Med.  aevi  Ka- 
lendarium  I,  397-+20  ('Ga'). — 51 
(2),  53,56,  56(0.73(0,  1+8(2), 
150  (0,  151  (2),  153,  176. 

A  breviate  calendar  '  temp.  Athelstani* 
Bodleian  MS.  Junius  29,  in  part 
extracted  from  the  foregoing  Metri- 
cal Calendar  (<  J  *).— 146,  1+8  (2), 
176. 

Poetical  Menology  (Anglo-Saxon). — 2+, 

i+7  (»)■ 

Saint  Edmundsbury 

MS.  Vatic.  Reg.  12.- — 60  (0,  i+7- 
Saint  Jraast,  calendar  in  a  Sacramentary 

of. — 156. 
Senlis,  calendar  in  a  Sacramentary  of. — 

155-156. 
Sherborne 
C.C.C.C.  MS.  +22  the  '  Red  Book 
of  Derby'  (« Sh')— 3+  (0,  56  (1), 
60,  61,  73  (1),  148  (2),  150  (0, 
151(2),  I59(0,i6o,  1 70  Oct.  (3) 
(+),  176  (St.  Aldhelm),  178. 


Wells 

B.  M.  Cotton  MS.  Vitellius  A  xviii 
('V'). — 31  (1),  61  (in  footnote), 
73  (0,  148(2),  »59(0»  160,  161, 
162  (1),  162-164,  !^9  Sept.  n.  3. 
'  West-Country'  (see  also  Evesham,  Wor- 
cester). 

B.  M.  Cotton  MS.  Nero  A  ii  (<  N  '). 
—34  (0»  37  (0»  6l  (in  footnote), 
73  (0,148  (2),  150  (1),  151  (2), 

*52,  x59  (0,  l6o>  l6l>  l6z  (2), 
164,  178;  print  of,  165 — 171. 

Calendar  in  Missal  of  Robert  of  Jumi- 
eges,  H.  B.  Soc.  xi,  1896,  pp.  9-20 
(<R').— 3+ (1),  38  (1),  62,  73  (1), 
148  (2),  151  (2),  159  (1),  160- 
161,  169  Aug.  n.  3,  178. 

Calendar  in  Salisbury  Cathedral  Li- 
brary MS.  1  50  ('  S  ').— 23,  34  (1), 
37  (0>  55,  56(0,6i  (in footnote), 

73  (0,  148(2),  I49-I5°,  J51  (2), 
159  (0,  160,  161,  170  Nov.  n.  2, 
172(2),  178. 

Westminster. — 125. 

Willibrord's  calendar. 


446  (<WT').— 19,  30,  34  (0,  38 
(0,  48,  49,  5°  (0,  59,    73  (0, 
148  (2),  150  (0,  159  (0,  161. 
Worcester 

C.C.C.C.   MS.    391    ('Wo').— 23, 
34  (0,  38  (2),  48,  61-62,73(0, 
148(2),  1 51  (2), 1 60-1 61, 169  Sept. 
n.  1,172  (2),  178. 
York 

Bodleian  MS.  Digby  63  ('D').— 25 
(2),  34(0,  122(0,  H8  (2),  150, 
151-152,  158-159,  160,  161,  176, 
178. 
The  Metrical  York  Calendar  hitherto 
known  as  the  'Poetical  Martyrology 
of  Bede' ;  printed  in  d'Achery's  Spici- 
legium  1st  ed.  X  pp.  126-129,  2nd 
ed.  II  pp.  23-24;  Bedae  Opera  ed. 
Giles  I  pp.  50-5  3  (cf.  p.  clxix) ;  criti- 
cal edition  by  Dom  Quentin,  see 
p.  147  above  (<Y')._53,  147(0,, 

H8(2),i5o(0,i5i(2),i58,  159, 

176,  178. 
Canon  of  Mass  in  Bosworth  Psalter,  pecu- 


liarity in  175. 

Paris  B.  N.  MS.  Lat.  10837  ('Will').    Canterbury,  archbishops  of:  cult  of  early 

— 34  (0,  122,   146  (2),  150  (0,        archbishops  at  St.  Augustine's  34-35, 

151  (2),  176,  178.  125;  unofficial  cults  at  the  cathedral 

Winchester  in  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  cen- 

B.  M.  Arundel  MS.  60  [No  2  of  the        turies  123-  124.  See  also  Feasts. 

Table  p.  76  seqq.]. — 23,   30,   34    Canterbury  cathedral:  relic  cults  at  57- 

(0,  38   (0,  39,  4I"42,    53,  68,        59,64(2),  124;  revision  of  calendar 

73  (1).  in  the  twelfth  century  1  20  cf.  1  73.  See 

B.  M.  Cotton  MS.  Vitellius  E  xviii,        also  Anselm  (St.),  Benedictional,  Cal- 

printed  in  Hampson,  op.  cit.  I,  422-        endars,  Feasts,  Gradings,  Lanfranc. 

433  ('WV'). — 19,30,34,(0,38    Canterbury    St.    Augustine's:    calendars 

(0,  39,  41~42,  48,  49,  5°  (2),  53,        andcultsof  34-35, 125,  i7i-i74;feast 

of  Ordination  of  St.  Augustine  122 
( 0 ;  feast  of  Ordination  of  St.  Elphege 
122  (0-  See  also  Calendars,  Feasts. 
Canticles  in  Bosworth  Psalter:  of  lauds 
11-12;  for  third  nocturn  13-14;  ver- 
sion used  14. 


59,  61,  (in  footnote),  62,  73  (0, 
148   (2),    150   (0,    159  (0,  160, 
161,  168  June  n.  1,  Jul.  n.  1. 
Havre  MS.  Missal  of  c.    11 20. — 38 

(0,  53  (0,  7o,  71  (0,  and  notes 
on  col.  11  of  the  Table  p.  78  seqq. 


Winchester  Newminster 

B.  M.  Cotton   MS.  Titus   D   xxvii,    Dunstan  St.:  at  Ghent  25  (2);  date  of 

printed  in  Hampson,  op.  cit.  I,  435-        Ordination  61  in  footnote;  and  Wulf- 


l8l 


sin  bishop  of  Sherborne  61-62;  and 
Bosvvorth  Palter  1  26-1  30;  his  mona- 
chism  127-129;  enquiry  into  the 
accepted  date  of  his  birth  133-143; 
and  obit  of  Eadgifu,  widow  of  Ed- 
ward the  Elder  at  Canterbury  174. 
See  Anselm  (St.),  Lanfranc. 

Eadbald  king  of  Kent,  his  obit  at  St. 
Augustine's  173-174. 

'Eadgifu  evax',  widow  of  Edward  the 
Elder,  her  obit  at  St.  Augustine's  1  74. 
See  also  under  Feasts  (Ediva  regina). 

Eadmer  of  Canterbury  31,  44-45,  47" 
48,  64  (2);  his  life  of  St.  Dunstan, 
136,  142-143. 

English  calendars:  growth  of  national 
sense  reflected  in  the  calendars  of  the 
tenth  and  eleventh  centuries  33. 

Evesham.      See  Calendars. 

Exeter:  use  of  Winchester  liturgical 
formulae  at  38  (2);  Benedictional  of 
4.8  (2);  Collectar  of  (48  (2)  163;  cult 
of  St.  Olave  at,  48  (2),  162  (3);  Li- 
tany of,  162-163;  Martyrology  of 
164;  Psalter  of,  see  Leofric. 

Feasts  and  Cults 

Adrian  abb.  26,  34. 

yElfric  abp.  29,  29  (1),  113  (1),  124. 

./Elfric  hermit   113  (1)  [read:   Pluck- 
nett/or  Bryan] 

./Ethelmod  bp.    165  Jan.  n.  1. 

Affra  148  (2). 

Aidan  bp.  18,  21. 
„       „  transl.  161. 

Alban  19,  22. 

Albinus  (23  Mar.)  151. 

Aldegundis  20,  24,  26. 

Aldhelm  bp.  26,  61  (0,176. 

Alexander  and  Ammon,  Thirty  Comp. 
of  151  (2)  cf.  178. 

All  Saints  (1  Nov.)    16  (2),  17;    ori- 
gins of  the  feast  158  (1). 

All  Saints,  vigil  22. 

Amandus  24, 1 6 1 ;  three  feasts  159(1)- 

Anastasia  16  (2),  25,  30. 

l82 


Anastasius  (13  Oct.)  151  (2). 
Andrew  ap.  octave  1 7. 

„  „    transl.  160, 167  May  n.  2. 

„    vigil  22. 
Anselm  abp.  34,  87  (2). 
Antony  monk  28,  30  (2),  172. 
Appollinaris  and  Leuthfred  160. 
Assumption  of  B.  V.,  vigil  16,  (2). 
Athanasius  bp.  30  (1),  150  (1). 
Athelard  abp.  124. 
Athelm  abp.  1  24. 
Athelred  abp.  124. 
Audoen  bp.  58,  64,  73-74,  173. 
Audomarus  bp.  (8  June)  25;     (6,  7 

June)     159    (1);    (9    Sept.),    1 22, 

159  (*)• 
Augustine  abp.  18,  23,  32,  61  (1),  63, 

72,  124,  158  (1). 
Augustine  abp.   ordination    122    (1), 

171. 
Augustine  (of  Capua)     122(1). 
Augustine  (of  Hippo)  17. 
Austroberta  30  (2),  58-59,  173. 
B.  V.  M.  Conception  of  32,  43-53, 

64  (3),  117,  118,  119. 
B.  V.  M.  Oblation    in    the    Temple 

49"53»  I2°>  !72- 
Babillus  and  Three  Children  20,  28, 

148  (2). 
Baltildis  20,  26,  28. 
Baralus  25,  170  Nov.  n.  2. 
Bardo  abp.  of  Mainz,  cult  at  Exeter 

162-163. 
Barnabas  ap.  25. 
Barontus  monk  160,  160  (1). 
Bartholomew  ap.  17,  64,  73-74,  102 

(0,  158  (0,  176-177- 

Basil  (1  Jan.)  29  (1). 

Basilides  etc.  17. 

Beatrix  (9  June)  150. 

Benedict  abb.  (21  Mar.)    17,  22,  23, 

32,61  (1),  158(1). 
Benedict  abb.   (n  July)   22,  23,  32, 

61  (1)  72. 
Benedict  abb.  (4  Dec.)  161. 
Benet  Biscop  18,  20,  28. 
Bertin  abb.  depos.  159  (1). 


Bertin  abb.  transl.  (16  July)  159  (1). 
Birinusbp.  30(1), 41  (2), 60,62,69(1), 

171  (1). 
Birinus  bp.  octave  60. 

„        „     transl.  30  (1),  41  (2),  60, 

62,  69  (1),  169  Sept.  n.  1. 
Birnstan  bp.  60. 
Blase  30  (2),  58-59,  124. 
Boniface  abp.  and  m.  18,  30  (1). 
Botulf  abb.  26,  30. 
Branwalator  20,53-54,57  in  footnote, 

176. 
Bregwin  abp.  34,  103,  124. 
Brendan  1 61-162. 
Brice  22. 
Bridget  18. 
Caesarius    16    (2),    30    (1),    30    (2) 

149  (1). 

'Calesti  pape'  (20  Feb.)  165  Feb.  n.  5. 
'Castrenensis  m'  'Castrensis  m'.  152, 

165. 
Celnoth  abp.  124. 
Ceolfrid  abb.  18,  21,  169  Sept.  n.  3. 

„  „  transl.  161. 

Chad  bp.  18. 
Christopher  25. 
Ciprianus  (26  Sept.)  151  (2). 
Ciriacus  (16  Mar.)  151  (2). 
Clement  m.    23-24,  61  (1),  121  (1), 

150  (1),  158  (1). 
Collumcyll  168  June  n.  3. 
Conception  B.  V.  M.  See  B.  V.  M. 

*  Conciliorum  et  aliorum  mille'   150 

cf.  178. 
Congar  164. 
Credan  abb.  162  (2). 
Crisantus  and  Daria  (23  Oct.)  250(1). 
Cristina(i9  July)  151  (2)  cf.  178,  160. 

„     (5  Oct.)  148  (2). 
Cross,  Invention  of  Holy  17. 
Cucufas  30. 

Cuthbert  abp.  Ill,  124. 
Cuthbert  bp.  18,  23,  61  (1),  158. 

„    transl.     30  (1),  41  (2); 

60,  62,  158,  159.,  169  n.  1. 
Cuthman  160. 


Damasus  25  (1). 

David  ('deawig')  166  Mar.  n.  1. 

Dedication  of    Church  of  St.  Mary 

(Pantheon,  13  May)   21. 
Delfinus  148  (2). 
Denis  and  Companions  17. 
Denis,  Invention  of  St.  150. 
Deusdedit  abp.  26,  29,  34,  97. 
Didimus  and  Gaius  25. 
Dionisius  and  Hilarius  (14  July)  151. 
Donatus  bp.  (1  Mar.)  30  (1). 
Donatus  (15  Nov.)  150  (1). 
Dunstan   26,   27,   32-33,  33  (1),  61 

(0,63-64,  64  (1),  88  (2). 
Dunstan  octave  29  (1),  32,  33,  88(2). 

„  ordination   33,  61  (1). 

„  vigil  64  (1). 

Eadfridusc.  170  Oct.  n.  5. 
Eatferth  1  65  Jan.  n.  1 ,  1  70  Oct.  n.  5. 
Edburga  (of  Winchester)  26,  60,  62. 

„  transl.  (18  July)  41,  60  (2). 

Edith  61  (1). 

'Edocus  cf.'  (=Judoc)  56  (1). 
Edward  k.  and  cf.  29. 
Edward  k.  and  m.  30  (1),  61(1),  65- 

66,  82  (1),  121  (2),  176. 
Edwold  anchorite,  transl.   (12  Aug.) 

61  (1). 
Egwin  bp.  161,  162  (2),   162  (3)  cf. 

178,  1  71  Dec.  n.  4. 
Egwin  bp.  transl.  (13  Sept.)  161. 

„        „  andOthulf  transl.  (10  Oct.) 

161. 
Elena  regina  ( 1  8  Aug.)  1615(19  Aug.) 

169  Aug.  n.  3. 
Elgiva  (of  Shaftesbury)  26. 
Elphege  abp.  27,  31,  32,  61  (0,63, 

64  (1),  72. 
Elphege  abp.  ordination  33,  122(1). 

„  „     transl.  64  (1). 

Elphege  bp.  60,  159. 
Emerentiana  28. 
Epiphany  octave  of  17. 
Erasmus    m.    148   (2)   cf.   178,   167 

June  n.  1 . 
Ercenwald  (7  July)  168  Jul.  n.  2. 

183 


Erkenwald  bp.  30  (1). 

Ermenilda  25,  26,  30  (1). 

Ethelbert  k.  and  c.  80,  81. 

Ethelbert  k.  and  m.  88  (1) 

Ethelburga  of  Barking  (11  Oct.)  19, 
24,  25, 1  70  Oct.  n.  3,172,172  (2). 

Ethelburga  of  Faremoutier  (7  July)  26. 

Etheldreda  19,  22,  25. 

Etheldredus  and  Etheldruthus  172. 

Ethclfleda  48  (2),  60  (2). 

Ethelgar  abp.  34,  81,  124. 

Ethelwold  bp.   60,  62;  feast  at  Can- 
terbury 102. 

Ethelwold  bp.  transl.  60,  62. 

Eugenia  (16  May)  25,  151  (2). 

Eulalia  (of  Barcelona,  12  Feb.)  172. 

Eulalia  (of  Merida,  10  Dec.)  153. 

Euphemia  (12  Apr.)  30  (1). 
„  (16  Sept.)  25  (1). 

Euphemia  (in  'Nobis  quoque  pecca- 
toribus')  175. 

Eusebius;  see  Felix. 

Faith  33. 

Felician,  see  Paternus. 

Felicitas    (23  Nov.)     16  (2),  30  (2); 
(21  Nov.)  150  (1). 

Felix  (5  Nov.)   148  (2). 

Felix  and  Eusebius  (5  Nov.)  150(1). 

Felix  in  Pincis  21. 

Felix  pope  (30  May)  148  (2). 

Feologild  abp.  1  24. 

Ferreol  and  Ferrucio  154. 

Firminus  bp.  (of  Amiens)  122. 

Firminus  (25  Sept.)  151  (2). 

Flavianus  150  (1). 

Florentius  (15  July)   148  (2). 

Florentius  (16  Oct.)  151  (2). 

Florianus  1  50  (1). 

Folquinus  bp.  122. 

Fortunatus  (9  Jan.)  20,  28. 

Francis  120. 

Fursey  25  cf.  1  75,  58-59.59(0,78,79; 
(7  June  167  n.  2.) 

Genovefa  1  7,  20,  2 1,  28,  30(1), 30  (2). 

George  61  (1). 

Germanus  of  Auxerre:  1  54;  (3  1  July) 
162  (2)  cf.  178;  (1  Oct.)  24. 
184 


Germanus  of  Paris  (28  May)  30  (2). 
Gildas  (29  Jan.)  18,  28. 

„      (28  Sept.)  169  Sept.  n.  4. 
1  Gordiana  '  1  50. 
Gorgonius  (9  Sept.)  17,  150. 
Gorgonius  (10  Mar.)  151. 
Gregory  23,  61  (1),  72,  158  (1). 
Gregory,  ordination  of,  33,  34  (1). 
Grimbald  26,  60,  61  (1),  62. 
'Gurdianus'  151. 
Guthlac  18,  23,  30  (1). 
Hedda  bp.  60,  62. 
Hcemma  abb.  165  Jan.  n.  1 ,  1 67  May 

n.  5. 
Hilarion  anchorite  148  (2). 
Hilarius  (14  Mar.)  151. 
Hilarius  (14  July)  see  Dionisius. 
Hilary  of  Poitiers  28,  154. 
Honorina  173. 
Honorius  abp.  26,  29,  107. 
Ignatius  bp.  &  m.  (17  Dec.)  151  (2), 
l71  0)L/^r<7  Dec'  read* ij'];  (20 
Dec.)  150  (1)  cf.  178. 
Innocents,  number  of  150. 

„         octave  28,  29. 
Irenaeus  99. 
Isicus  170  Nov.  n.  3. 
Isidore  (2  Jan.)  20,  28,  149  (1). 
Iwi  c.  1  70  Oct.  n.  2. 
Jambert  abp.  35  (2),  172. 
James  ap.  (25  July)  17,  158  (1). 
Jerome  17. 
John  Bapt.,  Beheading  of  16  (2),  17. 

„         ,,       Conception  ot  22,  30  (1). 

„  „       Invention  of  Head  of  160. 

„         „       octave  168  Jul.  n.  1. 
John  ev.  octave  20,  28,  29. 

„      „    before  the  Latin  Gate  153. 
John  of  Beverley  bp.  158,  160. 
Joseph,  Spouse  of  B.  V.,  160. 
Jovita  165  Feb.  n.  4. 
Judoc  (9  Jan.  &  13  Dec.)  20,41  (2), 
53,   56   (1),  60,  61    (1),  62.   Cf. 
'  Edocus '. 
Julian  see  Lucian. 

Julian  (of  Le  Mans)  bp.  1 2 1  (2),cf.  79. 
Juliana  v.  (or  Julianus,]27  Jan.)  1 50(1). 


'Julianus'  (7  June)  150. 

Justiniana  151. 

Justus  abp.  26,  69  (i),('Justini')  170 
Nov.  n.  2. 

Justus  m.  41  (3),  60,  62. 

Justus  &  Justiniana  (18  Oct.)  151  (1). 

Katherine  33. 

Kenelm  26,  30  (1). 

Lambert  24. 

Laurence  abp.  26. 

Laurence  m.  octave  17. 

„    vigil   16  (2). 

Leo  I  (1 1  Apr.)  30  (1),  163. 
„    „  (28  June)  30  (1). 

Leo  IX  ( 1 9  Apr.)  cult  at  Exeter  1 62- 
163. 

Leodegar  24,  25  (1). 

Leodfrithus  bp.  168  June  n.  4. 

Leonard  33. 

Lethardus  bp.  35. 

Liwinus  bp.  m.  172. 

Longinus  29  (1). 

Lucia  and  Geminianus  30  (1). 

Lucian  and  Julian  (8  Jan.)  25,  28. 

Luke  ev.  17. 

Maccabees  120. 

'Machutus'  (14  May,  ?=  Maximus) 
167  May  n.  3. 

Machutus  (Maclovius,  'Machlonus', 
St.  Malo)  53,  56. 

Marcellus  (20  Apr.)  150  (1);  Mar- 
cellus  Peter  25. 

Margaret  148  (2)  cf.  178. 

Marina  (7  July)  148  (2)  cf.  178. 

Marina  (17  July)  148  (2). 

Mark  ev.  (18  May)  22. 

Martin  (n  Nov.)  23,  158  (1). 

Martyrs,  Eighty-Six  (24  Aug.)  150(1). 
„  Forty  (9  Mar.)  18,  21,  'mi- 
lium' 171  (1),  'millium'  172. 

Martyrs,  Hundred  and  Seventy  (16 
Oct.)  151. 

'Mary'  &  Martha  20,  25  (1),  30  (1). 

Mary  of  Egypt  29  (1),  85,  148  (2) 
cf.  178,  172. 

Mary  Magdalen  33,  158  (1). 


Z* 


Matthew  ap.  17. 

„    vigil  17,  22. 
Matthias  ap.  17,  158  (1). 
Maucannus  162  (3). 
Maurice  17;  Companions  of  148  (2) 

cf.  178,  169  Sept.  n.  2. 
Maurus  abb.  20,  28. 
Maxima    and    Nicomedes  (30  Oct.) 

150  (1)  cf.  178. 
Maximianus  (29  Oct.)  152  cf.  178 
Medardus  30  (1). 
Mellitus  abp.  18,  69  (1),  159. 
Merwinna  25. 
Milburga  25,  121  (2),  172. 
Mildred  26,  30  (2). 
Mummolinus  bp.    159  (1). 
Nails,  Invention  of  the  Holy  150  cf. 

178. 
Neot(3i  July)  162  (2)cf.  178, 162(3). 
Neot  (20  Oct.)  170  Oct  n.  4. 
Nereus  Achilleus  etc.  1  20. 
Nicasius  (of  Rheims)   120. 
Nicasius  (of  Rouen)  173. 
Nicholas  bp.  c.  171  Dec.  n.  1. 
Nicodemus  Gamaliel  and  Abibon  29 

.(I)- 
Nicomedes  (1  June)  30  (1). 
Nicomedes.      See  Maxima. 
Nothelm  abp.  26,  34-35,  125- 
Oblation  of  B.  V.  M.  See  B.  V.  M. 
Octave  of  Apostles  Peter  &  Paul  99. 
Odo  abp.  29  (1)  34. 
Odulph  abp.  161. 
Olavem.  48  (2),  61  (1),  162  (3). 
Omer  (St.).     See  Audomarus. 
Oswald  abp.  161. 

„       „      transl.(  16  Apr.,  8  Oct.) 

161. 
Oswald  k.  and  m.  158. 
Othulf.      See  Egwin. 
'Pancratus'  151  (2). 
Paternus  and  Felician  (3  Sept.)  150(1) 
Patrick  bp.  18,  24,  ?  48  (2),  65,  151 

(2),  160. 
Patrick  the  elder  1 8,  21,  24,^)48  (2). 
Paul,  Conversion  of  St.  17. 

185 


Paul  hermit  28,  30  (1),  148  (2). 

Paulinus  of  Rochester  bp.  19,  33. 

Perpetua  (4  Nov.)  148  (2). 

Peter.      See  Marcellus. 

Peter  and  Paul,  vigil  22. 

Peter's  Chair  at  Antioch  (22  Feb.)  1 7. 

Peter's Chairat Rome (18 Jan.)  25,  28. 

Peter's  Chains  16  (2),  25. 

Peter  deacon  151  (2)  cf.  178,160. 

Petrock  (2  June.)  53,  56. 

Petrock  (23  May)  167  May  n.  4. 

Petronella  30  (1). 

Philip  and  James  ap.  21. 

Pinnosa  163  (2). 

Plegmund  abp.  124. 

Policronus  bp.  &  m.  (19  Feb.)  148  (2). 

Pollicarpus  (19  Feb.)  148  (2). 

Potentiana  18,  30  (1),  32,  88  (2). 

Praxedes  18. 

Prejectus  28,  30  (2). 

Primus  and  Felician  1  7. 

Quintin  22. 

„       Invention  of  St.  150. 

Radegund  24,  166. 

Relics,  feast  of  at  Canterbury  cathe- 
dral 74. 

Richarius  170  Oct.  n.  I. 

Romanus  m.  (of  Antioch)  121-122. 

Ronan  at  Canterbury  cathedral  121- 
122,  177-178. 

Rumwald  26,  1 70  Nov.  n.  I. 

Sabina  (29  Aug.)  16  (2),  25. 

Saints  of  Europe,  feast  of  the  5  1  (2) 
cf.  158(1). 

Salvius  (26  June)  25,  30  (2),  36-37, 
37  (1)  [in  last  line  for  first  read  se- 
cond], 58,59,  124,  150  (1)  cf.  178. 

Salvus  (1  1  Jan.)  150  (1). 

Samson  bp.  30  (1),  53,  176. 

Sativola  48  (2),  162  (3). 

Saturninus  and  Thirty  Companions 
(27  Jan.)  151  (2)  cf.  178. 

Saturninus  of  Rome  16  (2),  25. 

Saturninus  of  Toulouse  153. 

Sauina  (24  Jan.)  150  (1). 

Sauina  (29  Jan.)  151  (2). 

l86 


Sauina  (5  Oct.)  1 48  (2). 

Scholastica  22. 

Secundus  (19  Dec.)  150  (1). 

Seven  Sleepers  25. 

Sexburga  26,  71  (1),  172. 

Siburgis  93,  1  24. 

Silas  ap.  1  22. 

Silvanus  1  50  (1). 

Simeon  monk  28. 

Simon  and  Jude  ap.  vigil  17,  22. 

Simon  hermit  at  Treves  162,  163. 

'Sindanus'  149  (1),  150  (1). 

Siric  abp.  I  24. 

Sophia  148  (2). 

Spiridion  25. 

Stephen,  Invention  of  St.  22. 

Stephen,  octave  of  St.  20,  28,  29. 

Swithun  bp.  26,  41    (2),  60,  61    (i), 

62,  120,  159. 
Swithun  bp.  ordination  60,62-63,1 61. 

„        ,,   translation  26,  30  (1),  41 
(2),  60,  62,  159. 
Symphorian  153. 

Symphorosa  &  Seven  sons  150  (1). 
Tathwin  abp.  35  (2),  172. 
Tecla  (1  June)  150  (1). 
Theodore  abp.  19,  22,  33. 
Theophilus  29  (1). 
Thomas  ap.  17. 

„       „     transl.   (3  June,  3  July) 

175- 
Thomas    of  Canterbury,  'Regressio* 

of  117,  1 19. 
Thomas  of  Canterbury,  transl.  173. 
Tibba  38  (1). 

Tiburtius  (11  Aug.)  121  (1). 
Timothy  (18  Mar.)  150  (1). 
Timothy  (7  Apr.)  172,  172  (2). 
Timothy  &  Apollinaris(2  3  Aug.)l6l. 
Torpes  m.  161-162. 
Tova  162  (3). 
Urban  (25  May)  21 
Urban  (23  Dec.)  150  (1). 
Valericus  25. 
'Venatus'  151  (2),  178. 
Victor  (6  Mar.)  172,  172  (2). 


Victor  Quartus  &  404  mm.   18,  21. 

Victoria  (23  Dec.)  151  (2). 

Vincent  &  Appollinaris  18. 

Vitalis  m.  (28  Apr.)  21. 

Vulganius  1 13,  124. 

Wandregisil  25. 

Welvela  162  (3). 

Werburga  25. 

Wilfrid  bp.  19,  33,  158,  159;  cor- 
ruption of  tradition  as  to  his  feasts 
160. 

Winnoc  159  (1). 

Wistan  m.  161,  162  (2). 

Withburga  26. 

Wulfelm  abp.  124. 

Wulfmar  25,  1  59  (1). 

Wulfred  abp.  1 24. 

Wulfsin  bp.  (8  Jan.)  61  (1). 

„     transl.  (27  Apr.)  61   (1). 

Feasts:  Breton  feasts  in  England  53-57; 
local  Evesham  feasts  161,  162  (1);  of 
the  region  of  Ponthieu  and  Terouanne 
in  England  25, 159(1),  i7oOct.n.  I; 
list  of  local  Winchester  feasts  60, 60(2); 
extension  of  Winchester  feasts  to  other 
churches  60-62;  of  foreign  saints  in 
calendar  of  Vitellius  A  xviii  163  (3). 

Fleury.      See  Calendars. 

Gelasianum,  Sanctorale  of  16-17,  25. 

'Gelas.  sac.  vl'iV,  Sanctorale  of  1  54,  176; 
origin  of  the  Sacramentary  154  (1). 

Ghent,  St.  Dunstan  at  25  (2);  relics  of 
St.  Wandregisil  at  25  (2). 

Giso  bishop  of  Wells,  162,  163-164. 

Glastonbury:  cults  of  SS.  Aidan,  Ceol- 
frid  and  Patrick  the  elder  at  18,  21; 
English  feasts  in  Glastonbury  calendars 
18-19;  Winchester  feasts  and  62;  Glas- 
tonbury calendar  as  source  of  calendar 
in  Bosworth  Psalter  15,  19-21,  126; 
as  source  of  Sherborne  calendar  61  ( 1 ). 
See  Calendars,  Grading. 

Godfrey  of  Cambray,  prior  of  Winches- 
ter, liturgical  reforms  of  1  2 1 . 


Grading  of  feasts:  indicated  by  *F'  and 
<S',  15-17,  18,  21-22,  70(1);  by  <F' 
56  (1),  61  (i);byacross,  23,  I58;by 
Roman  numerals  122-123;  Lanfranc's 
scheme  of  grading  for  Canterbury  ca- 
thedral 63,  72-74,  123;  Canterbury 
cathedral  gradings  in  later  middle  ages 
72;  late  changes  in  grading  at  Canter- 
bury cathedral  71  (1),  77,  79  seqq., 
177. 
Gregorianum,  Sanctorale  of  16-17,  2  5  • 
Grouping  of  Anglo-Saxon  calendars  1  58 
seqq. 

Hymnal  of  Bosworth  Psalter  12-13,1 26- 

127. 

Irish  members  of  Worcester  cathedral 
community  162,  162  (1);  traces  of 
Irish  influence  at  Evesham   1 61-162. 

Lanfranc,  abp.  of  Canterbury :  &  calendar 
of  Canterbury  cathedral  27-34,  39> 
63-64,  I  20;  and  feasts  of  St.  Benedict 
3  2 ;  and  feast  of  Conception  of  B.  V.M. 
32,  47;  ignores  feast  of  St.  Dunstan 
32,  63,  88  (2);  and  Canterbury  relics 
64  (2);  and  relics  of  St.  Salvius  36;  his 
Statutes  for  Canterbury  cathedral  32, 
63-64,  6j,  72-74,  89  (footnote);  his 
cult  29(1),  125  (1). 

Leofric  bishop  of  Exeter:  theLeofric  Mis- 
sal 15,  38  (2);  psalter  written  under 
his  direction  162-163.  See  Exeter. 

Lessons:  of  St. Dunstan  33  (1);  of  St.  Sal- 
vius 37. 

Lobbes,  Gospel  book  of,  given  by  Athel- 
stan  to  Canterbury  cathedral  61  (1). 

'Lorrainer'  bishops  and  English  calen- 
dars 61  (1),  162-164. 

Luxeuil.  See  Calendars. 

Martyrological  element  in  English  calen- 
dars 19-21,  25,  145-164. 

Martyrologies : — 

Bede's  146,  148(1),  150(1),  151(2). 


187 


'Bede's  Poetical  Martyrology.'     See 

Calendars,  York. 
Drummond  Missal,  brief  Mart,  in:  its 

use  for  practice  156;  162,  i__. 
Dublin  Christ  Church:  48  (2). 
Exeter:  61  (1),  164. 
Gellonense:  146,  1 48-1  i^passim,  I  55, 

176;  its  diffusion  &  its  introduction 

into  England  156-157;  two  Brev- 

iatcs  of  1  78. 
Hieronymianum:    146,  148-1  57  pas- 
sim. 
'Libellus  annalis  domni  Bedae  presbi- 

teri:'  149. 
Oengus  the  Culdee:  51   (1),  122  (1), 

146,  148(1),  150(1),  151(2),  153 

(1),  158  (1),  160(1). 
Old  English  Martyrology:    146,  148 

(1),  150  (1),  151  (2). 
Rheims  MS.  of  Godelgaudus:    155, 

155(0- 
Reichenau  {Rich)  in  Zurich  MS.  Hist. 

28:  165  Feb.  n.  4,  175. 
Rheinau  MS.  30:  155,  160.(1) 

Naples  calendar  (Gospel  capitular)  of  the 

seventh  century  152-153. 
Newminster.  See  Calendars   Winchester. 
Nicholas  of  St.  Albans:  his  tract  on  the 

feast  of  the  Conception  of  the  Blessed 

Virgin  45, No  9  in  footnote  &  cf.  175; 

on  the  prerogatives   of    the    Blessed 

Virgin  64(3). 
Norman   Conquest,  changes  in  liturgy, 

piety,  etc.  consequent  on :  7-8,  38-39, 

52"53>  57,  64  (3),   120-121.     See 

Lanfranc. 

Obits  in  the  St.  Augustine's  calendar 
Canterbury  MS.  E  19:  173-174. 

Odo,  abp.,  his  monastic  profession  129. 
See  Feasts. 

Oengus  the  Culdee,  edition  of  his  Marty- 
rology by  Dr.  Whitley  Stokes  157  (1). 
See  Martyrologies. 


Osbern,  the  cantor,  of  Canterbury  cathe- 
dral :  &  relics  of  St.  Audoen  64(2) ;  and 
feasts  of  SS.  Bartholomew,  Audoen,  and 
"Relics  74  (in  footnote);  his  Life  of  St. 
Dunstan  136,  140,  142,  143  (1). 

Psalter: '  Gallican'  (Vulgate)  5:  'Roman' 
6-7,39;  the  obeli  &  asterisks  of  the  Gal- 
lican Psalter  6 ;  persistence  ofuse  of  Ro- 
man Psalter  in  England  7;  changes  in 
the  eleventh  century  7-9;  examples  of 
correction  to  Gallican  version  in  Eng- 
lish MSS.  8-9;  the  Psalter  of  the  Bos- 
worth  MS.  9-1  o;  HarleianMS.  863  a 
Psalter  of  bishop  Leofric  of  Exeter 
162-163. 

'  Red  Book  of  Derby.'     See  Calendars, 

Sherborne. 
Relics: — 

St.  Audoen  57,  64  (2). 

St.  Austroberta  57. 

St.  Blase  58. 

St.  Branwalator  54,  176. 

'Ediva  regina'  125  (1). 

St.  Egwin  161. 

St.  Fursey  57,  59  (1),  176. 

St.  Gregory  the  Great  64  (2). 

St.  Justus  m.  41  (3). 

St.  Salvius  36,  58. 

St.  Samson  54,  176. 

St.  Swithun  57. 

St.  Wandregisil  25  (2). 

St.  Wilfrid  57. 
Relics  and  relic  cults  at  Canterbury  cathe- 
dra! 57-59,  66-67,  I2+>  l25  (0- 
Relics,  feast  of,  at  Canterbury  cathedral. 

See  Feasts. 
Robert  of  Jumieges,  missal  of.     See  Ca- 
lendars, 'West-Country.' 

Saints.     See  Feasts  and  Cults,  Relics. 

Saints,  common  masses  of:  origins  of  the 
Commune  Sanctorum,  and  its  use  in 
Gaul,  153-155;    in  the  Drummond 


188 


Missal  156. 

Saints,  proper  masses  of:  ijseqq.,  147(2); 
Sanctorale  of  mass-books  of  Gallic  ori- 
gin 153-154;  Sanctorale  of  the  eighth 
century  Gallic  recension  of  the  Gelasi- 
anum  154. 

Sherborne.  See  Calendars,  Feasts  (Aethel- 
mod,  Wulfsin). 

Stubbs,  bishop:  his  treatment  of  the  early 
life  of  St.  Dunstan  127-129;  treatment 
of  the  question  of  the  date  of  birth  of 
St.  Dunstan  133-143. 

Wells.  See  Calendars. 

'West-country'  See  Calendars. 

Westminster  adopts  Canterbury  cathe- 
dral calendar  in  the  second  half  of  the 
twelfth  century  125;  its  foundation 
61  (1). 

Wilfrid,  St.,  date  of  his  death  1  59. 


Willibrord,  St.:  See  Calendars. 

Winchester:  adoption  by  other  churhe9 
of  special  Winchester  cults  before  the 
Conquest  59-64,  161 ;  extension  to 
other  churches  of  Winchester  liturgi- 
cal formulae  38  (2);  adoption  of  Win- 
chester calendar  by  other  churches  af- 
ter the  Conquest  38-39;  character  of 
calendar  revision  at  Winchester  after 
the  Conquest  120-12 1 ;  Breton  cults 
at  53,  56.  See  Calendars. 

Worcester:  cathedral  community  (1096- 
1 1 12)  and  Irish  influences  there  162. 
See  Calendars. 

Wulfred,  abp.,  his  charter  for  Christ 
Church  Canterbury  129. 

Wulfsin,  abbat  of  Westminster  and  bish- 
op of  Sherborne  61  (1). 

York.  See  Calendars. 


ADDITIONAL  CORRECTIONS 

In  'List  of  Contents '  for  page  18 1  read  See  in  Index  corrections  under  'Feasts': 
179  Aelfric  hermit,  Ignatius,  Salvius;  and 

p.  175  1.  zj  for  443  read  558  under  Babillus  etc.  add  178 

p.  180  col.  2  1.  20  before  1 591  insert  III 


189 


D    ooo  ooe 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


NOV  ■     1988 
NOV  IV  1988 

JAN 1 5  an? 

UN 
l|z|Z0fc3 


